tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35698092104638147262023-06-20T05:50:51.571-07:00Naut RightNaut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-67625483792030025432020-02-05T09:32:00.000-08:002020-02-05T09:32:53.343-08:00They Would Make For Us a KingIn the movie series Band of Brothers there’s a scene near the end where Major Winters’ former superior, Captain Sobel walks by without saluting. This is the major’s response: <a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=41FPh_QYWAc" target="_blank">Winters/Sobel Encounter</a>. It’s only 56 seconds.<br />
In it Winters admonishes Sobel for not saluting a superior officer. The two had a long, strained history. Winters reminds Sobel the salute is to the rank, not the man.<br />
———<br />
This relates to the absence of AOC and, I read but did not confirm that there were five others, from the SOTU address last night and the tempestuous behavior of Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. The attendance and decorum typical of most of the previous SOTU speeches ought to have been out of respect for the Office of President more than for the man occupying it.<br />
———-<br />
We do not have a king. But by expressing distaste for the man at an event mandated by the constitution, although the particular form is not, these women, and notably they were all women, have inadvertently, or maybe not, signaled that they consider the man to be a despotic king. Well, as a matter of fact they are on record saying that it is their opinion that Trump thinks himself a king. They just acted as though he were, making for us a king. This is not just how they think. It is how they would do if the office ever changes to a person suiting them. The latin Lex Rex is a phrase meaning law before men. It is our system condensed to its smallest form. AOC, Pelosi and their synchophants would reverse the phrase. They want a King or preferably a Queen.<br />
<u>——</u><br />
<br />Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-18967327405659445702019-12-05T09:47:00.001-08:002019-12-05T09:47:40.838-08:00<b><u>How TV and print media online ought to generate revenue</u></b><br />
<b><u>Copied from one of my comments made on </u></b><br />
<b><u><a href="https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/">PJ Media</a></u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<b><u><br /></u></b>
That’s all fine and dandy. But I have doubts the old subscription model is going to work. It’s killing cable and satellite TV. People want ala carte. What would I pay per article? In all honestly, having thought about this for over two decades, about 1/10¢ per article. I read between 50-100 per day. Do the annual cost; way more than subscription offerings. But I refuse to pay every site an annual subscription to read a tiny fraction of all their offerings.<br />
I would also be creating a new. Sector wide payment system like iPass. I would also include credits for responses to commenters, linking to others’ writings and more. They generate clicks and clicks are money. Leverage the internet for chrissakes. Maybe even put pressure on advertisers. I think the whole sector is outdated in its revenue generating model.Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-35223402721133975052013-10-03T15:41:00.002-07:002013-10-03T16:58:59.006-07:00Training Has Not Made Police Safer with a Weapon What happened at the White House today with the chase, shooting and killing of a woman who slammed her car into the White House barricades is instructive for several reasons. It seems senseless to try to ram a car through barricades designed to repel just such an act, for one. Go around, idiot. Go around, to borrow from B. Cosby. When the cops decide to shoot they exercise that military cliche', kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out. Check lockers for that T-shirt. Firearms training for cops either doesn't stick, isn't very good or unintentionally enables the gunslinger found in some cops.<br />
In D.C., L.A., N.Y., and who knows how many other towns and cities cops can't hit what they're shooting at, don't care what they might and do hit and seem to think the badge gives them the power and right to spray and pray out in a very public place.<br />
It seems that the one correct move the cops made today was that this car had to be stopped. A speeding car, possibly loaded with explosives, chemical or biological weapons leaves No time to assess the situation for purposes of bringing a dangerous situation to a peaceful conclusion. Even though the cops handled their weapons very poorly, the judgement to use them in the heat of the moment was more than likely the correct one.<br />
If the numerous examples of police mishandling of firearms is an indication of the resulting safety, then formal training will not make the private bearing of firearms any safer. I contend that the training, badge, uniform and attending authority brings out the gunslinger in most cops. Instead of making them more careful, it makes them go a bit wild. Why would that be? Because the consequences of a legal but wholly unsafe use of a firearm has only minor repercussions.<br />
Unlike the repercussions of a private citizen who, for perfectly defensible reasons, brandishes and fires even one shot, even finding its mark, God help you if you miss and hit an innocent, a cop who shoots an innocent during a legal use of his weapon is usually immune to any criminal prosecution or civil liability.<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969);">What then prompts a rare post from Naut Right? The gun grabbers persistent demands that private gun owners must undergo training to a level somewhat like the police, that's what prompts this post.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875);"> The liability of private citizens acts as a brake on gunslinger attitudes. Maybe even the relative legal safety of an attacker is a factor in prompting a considerable reluctance of the private citizen to use firearms in self defense. The Martin-Zimmerman case reflects that phenomena. A cop is not immune to human impulses because of firearms training. As previously stated, a set of circumstances unique to police work seem to prompt quite an opposite effect once a justifiable use of a weapon is decided upon, than the training intends, which is a careful use of firearms. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875);"> Therefore firearms training isn't the panacea for the safety concerns of the gun grabbers. It only acts as a screening device, taking put those who can't afford the money or time to get the training. The cops prove it more than occasionally. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875);"> Let's push back on their demands for training that doesn't impact the problem. Let's flesh out and refine the narrative that the present legal environment supplies the private citizen with the necessary brake upon any tendencies to go all gunslinger and tame the wild west. </span>Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-63123176975036070242013-02-20T07:52:00.001-08:002013-02-20T07:52:16.338-08:00The One Reason for the SecondThe Second Amendment reads: <span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, 'sans serif'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, 'sans serif'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, 'sans serif'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">The security of a free state is often found with State capitalized in older references and in the original.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, 'sans serif'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, 'sans serif'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">The special purpose of the Second is to guarantee to the citizenry, each in his or her own capacity the right to fend off armies both foreign amd domestic. You see a direct refernce to that another place in the constitution, in the original Article I. The famous gun case called Miller had court dicta that said arms used for military purposes were protected. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, 'sans serif'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, 'sans serif'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">The other rights under the umbrella of the Second; the right to hunt, to a personal form of self-defense, to collect firearms, to engage in shooting sports are also covered, quite adequately, under the Ninth Amendment. Even if the Second did not exist, these ancillary rights under the Second would be covered. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, 'sans serif'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, 'sans serif'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">To make a special emphasis, the Second guarantees the citizens the right to maintain war making powers. It is only by that ability can a free State be secure. Do not be misled, duped or worse become an unwitting dupe of the anti-gunners or the well meaning but timid gun supporters who rest their case on self-defense or hunting. </span>Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-78708439593088624112013-02-16T08:26:00.002-08:002013-02-16T08:26:27.521-08:00Don't Fix Obamacare The howls of protest are coming in about the law nobody read. Here are two links about that:<br />
<a href="http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/163556/">Key Democrats Turn on Obamacare</a> and this one, <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/16/legislation-repealing-obamacare-tax-paid-by-small-businesses-reintroduced/">New Taxes Bourne by Small Business;Legislation to Repeal</a><br />
<br />
Republicans should spurn efforts to tweak Obamacare. This was the bill that had to be passed, that nobody read and now nobody wants. Republicans should not lend the bill the slightest shade of merit by tweaking it, as though there is an overarching merit in it, in the main.<br />
<br />
Let the whole weight of what Obama and the Democrats and Chief Justice Roberts has wrought fall on the country. It will only be through the pain of their mistakes that Republicans will have a chance at complete repeal.<br />
<br />
Republicans need to say it clearly and without apology that this law will go into full force, as written, without amendment OR it will be repealed. The all or nothing at all approach is what the Democrats offered. Let them live with it.Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-81172742325158977152013-02-16T08:00:00.005-08:002013-02-16T08:00:53.867-08:00The Glue that Holds Establishment Republicans and Democrats TogetherThe Tea Party is to establishment Republicans and Democrats alike what Michael Milliken and other hostile takeover artist were/are to bloated businesses. Politics is the business. To stoke business the pendulum of public opinion has to be shoved from time to time. That happens by taking government to the extremes. The Tea Party would severely dampen the swaying to extremes by limiting the movement of government. Can't have that. Money would flow out of the business of politics.Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-52238892011701059632012-11-11T07:42:00.003-08:002012-11-11T07:45:04.079-08:00How Should Republicans Govern the Next Four YearsI am writing five days after the November 6th election. Reading as much of the post-election analysis as my time admits I can't help but wonder how the Republicans in the House, Senate and in the state held offices might try to govern in light of the re-election of Barack Obama and the retention of the Senate by the Democrats.<br />
<br />
Only a few items come to mind. In no particular order, the States should muscle up their 10th Amendment rights. The coercive scheme in place between the state and federal government that has gone on for decades should be challenged. States are co-equal units of government with more authority over a larger scope of government responsibility than is commonly known. Time for a few trips to the woodshed behind the supreme court.<br />
<br />
The House of Representatives needs to understand the reasons that the House was designed with two features that are unlike their counterparts in the Senate and the other branch, the Executive. Those are popular vote and power of the purse. The popular vote, coming every two years as it does, was a means of keeping government close to the will of the people. It is the design for true self-government. The Senate gets six year terms and are voted in statewide which can be an effective insulator from the will of the people. The Executive being chosen nationally for four years is also insulated from a close association with the people.<br />
<br />
The other feature in the Constituion designed for the House of Representatives is the power of the purse. All bills containing provisions to tax or spend must originate in the House. This power is designed to direct the efforts of the government to the will of the people. The current house leadership exercises this power somewhat weakly. When the Speaker says that the House cannot pass a budget without the concurrence of the Senate and President he is correct. When he says he must bend to their will he is not correct. That may be the compromising way to sign a budget into law but it is not a requirement that the House needs to compromise. The House can and should hold the government hostage to its budgetary and tax policy direction. Its a duty they have as evidenced by the power they were given.<br />
<br />
The Executive function is to carry out the will of the people as expressed through their House representatives. The Senate function is not to trump the House but to curb its tendencies to extremes. When either the Senate or the Executive attempt to co-opt the power of the House to set tax and spend policy it is the duty of the House to shut government down pending a return to their rightful duties, the Senate and Executive. This also ought to be the check designed to curb the power grabs of the bureaucracy. The House is the protectorate branch of the people. The Senate is the protectorate branch of the States. The Executive is the protectorate branch of the political entity called the United States. The constitution empowers each to be able to fulfill their duty and checks them each from usurping the powers of the others, p<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875);">rovided the others jealously guard their powers. </span><br />
<br />
Its up to the House to protect us during the next four years.<br />
<br />Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-90571653804561947542012-05-13T06:13:00.000-07:002012-05-13T06:13:25.210-07:00The Socialist Agenda Behind Gay MarriageOver at <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/">Lew Rockwell</a> is an article by one Scott Lazarowitz titled <a href="http://lewrockwell.com/lazarowitz/lazarowitz44.1.html">The Right to Marry</a>. Here is an excerpt from his article that, I think, best sums up his opinion, <blockquote>And in my opinion, there should be complete separation of marriage and state. No one should have to get a license issued by government bureaucrats to marry. It is not the business of the government to permit or forbid a private individual to establish one’s own private contracts voluntarily</blockquote>
Read the whole thing. It's pretty short. The Lew Rockwell site carries an eclectic assortment of articles with a heavy anti-statist bent. They vary from the delusional or conspiritorial to the reasonable or cautionary. I especially enjoy the bottom of the daily list that are devoted to health related matters and self defense weaponry and tactics.
This article sets within the anti-statist category. However, it fails to make the anti-statist case, remarkably and I feel compelled to call out the author to either bolster his position or abendon it. If he is anti-statist and he reads my emails he will have no honor if he doesn't abandon his position.
I responded in two back to back emails which I will paste in their entirety, below.
<blockquote>To make your case, a one track reliance on rights isn't going to be convincing. Don't read into that an inferral that you are not right. There are some matters of family law that, being heavily affected by a change of this kind, require answers.
How would you deal with other formulations of marriage if family law extended all the benefits of the social contract as it is, not as you wish it to be, as they would impact public expenditures? How would you deal with private contract disruptions that extend benefits to marriage as it is currently formulated after new formulations add substantially to the beneficiary pool?
How would you, or would you, rationalize marriage into only two sets; hetero and homo? Why not poly, incestuous, bestial, extended family, extended family poly, pediophiliactic marriage formulations?
Are there legal or moral or economic "laws" that would remain enforceable once you open this pandora's box to limit the formulations? Or would you not fret and let all comers enter?
Not to say there are no answers, nor that you are unable to provide them, but they're not in that article. Hence, its useless as a workable guide to changing family law. You extend rights into others' areas of obligation, initially taxpayers and employers, without balancing their rights.
Sincerely,
Mike Mahoney
in IN</blockquote>
and
<blockquote>Sorry to return so quickly, before I even give you a moment to consider a response. But, I left a glaring ommission with huge consequences out of my other letter.
The universal plea of the gay community is not to have a private right to marry as there is no state sanction against private marriage now. No, rather it is to have confirred on the marriage all, public and private by state sanction via equal rights and/or due process the benefits of heterosexual marriage onto new formulations of marriage. It is an undeniable demand made universally by the gay community and its supporters.
In other words, you want them to be able to extend their private right, as it exists now, into the public realm. This is the opposite of what you wrote and it is the way the gay community wants it. They do not want a mere PRIVATE right to marry. They want it to be PUBLIC POLICY, MARRIED TO FAMILY LAW! They want to extend and expand the welfare state in their behalf.
So within the confines of your article, either you are being disingenious or devious. There are other worse options I won't ascribe until I read your response.
Really, you have a tough row to hoe.
Sincerely,
Mike Mahoney
in IN</blockquote>Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-58036382816469225532012-05-09T07:20:00.000-07:002012-05-09T07:24:19.137-07:00Why Richard Lugar Lost His Senate SeatHow, in 2012, does a venerated, accomplished, well liked conservative Republican lose his seat of 36 years in the Red state primary of Indiana? Conventional wisdom is saying he wasn't conservative enough. By pointing to a few voting missteps and some bipartisan friendships the spinners of conventional wisdom plucked the obvious explanation. There's more to it than that. If the Republicans recognize the what else part of the reason, they'll see something more profound, though not complicated.
Senator Lugar was elected 4 years before Ronald Reagan. In a way he could claim to be a predecessor to Reagan and the Reagan style of Republican governing. That style is a blend of pragmatism, business acumen, and being results oriented. Lugar has hardly budged from that style, in spite of a few votes that infuriated me. It served him and the country well up until about 2000. Its taken 12 years, then for something to cause a tipping point. If the senator hasn't changed, what has?
Back in '76 a conservative elected to office of any shade from pink to scarlet was going to be an improvement over the FDR stlye of blue, social democrat that had dominated American politics for a half century. Lugar was good and red. Funny how red used to denote communism and now we use the election map colors the MSM put on states on election night to describe the voting trends that night. But I digress. Lugar was and is a good conservative. His ratings by various watchdog NGO's make it all too plain. By a measure of static historical reflection, Lugar should have been a shoe in. No Republican in the state could seriously have expected yesterday's defeat by looking over their shoulder at Lugar's past record or election results.
Eventually, even Lugar sensed that the rise of the Tea Party was going to present a challenge. Lugar must have believed that he could easily weather the challenge based upon his record. He failed to sense that the Republican electorate had recognized a weakness in the garden variety conservative. Further, that the democrats were exploiting it to great advantage and repeated victories. Lugar labeled his opponent's biggest support group, the Tea Party as extreme. The Tea Party embraced the label if only notionally. There was one extreme difference between Lugar and the Tea Party.
What Lugar either failed to realize or acknowlege was that the Democrats in particular and government in general were eating their lunch in legislative negotiations because the two sides were operating in agreement on a basic, underlying principle. That principle was that there should be no limiting principle to what government does and only slightly less, embraced that the means ought to have no limit. The disagreements were on details. This resulted in unrestrained growth and police powers of the state. Lugar styled Republicans were wedded to the idea that they could eventually talk sense into the deliberative process. It wasn't working. Republicans had held the reigns of power twice since 2000 and each time executed an overreach of their own design. Each time earning a smackdown from the electorate.
The new Republicans had woken up. They discovered the weakness and the cure. Lugar wouldn't take
the medicine; constitutionalism. That's the straw that broke the camel's back. Once the Republican elecorate rediscovered the source of a limiting principle, saw it in application in our early history and surmised it still the best fit for what ails the nation, Lugar's fate was sealed. He lived and died a pragmatist. He either failed to recognize or refused to believe that the Democratic acceptance of pragmatism divorced from limiting principles were ruining the country. Further, that they were using his own method of governing against us and him. If he were simply duped, realized it and refocused he would be our nominee, still.
When it became clear that the constitution wasn't in Lugar's political DNA that sealed his fate as senator. The times demand fealty to the limiting principles, extracted from the dillutions of history and case law. Richard Lugar couodn't even see it coming.
The rest of you, take note.
ectorateNaut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-78297948592065943652011-12-15T07:44:00.000-08:002011-12-15T07:44:39.625-08:00Trends in Government Services-Less for MoreUser fees and service fees are becoming a wide spread trend in the delivery model for government services. While there was a time that I advocated for such fees, now I am recanting based upon two points of objection. The first is the notion that government is a not for profit enterprise. The second is that whatever government does should provide a general benefit and be paid by general taxes. <br />
<br />
Taking the second point, first, for discussion. Without delving into an arguement to parse each and every function for its proper inclusion as a general benefit suitable to be a be government service, let's stipulate that what we do receive all qualify. I don't agree that they all do. Its just that this discussion goes to methods of paying for them.<br />
<br />
Very quickly and simply, if a government service is provided on a fee for use basis this means that the taxpayers pay to staff and equip the agency providing the service but, without the fee the service wouldn't be delivered. This makes little sense except as an admission that the service isn't provided as a general service but targets a specific group. Take toll roads and courts, for instance. While both are open to the public, only users pay fees to use them. The prevailing wisdom is that these services benefit all, even those who do not directly use them. Who wants criminals untried or their goods undelivered. or unable to commute to work?<br />
<br />
Going to the first objection, that government should not be involved in for profit endeavors.<br />
Whether or not the purpose of a fee is to make a profit or to subsidize a department, if the service is considered properly delivered by a government agency, the unstated premise is that the service somehow is connected to the general welfare and not a subsidization of a special interest group. If, OTOH, the government imposes fees in order to subsidize the taxpayer at the expense of the user, this gives rise to a challenge that the staffing and equipping of the delivering agency is a taxpayer subsidy to a special interest group. If this is the argument the government wants to make, then the proper mechanism for delivery of the service is through a competitive, private, for profit endeavor. <br />
<br />
One way governments have recognized this dichotomy of function (general welfare service) and recipient (subsidized special interest) is to contract out the service to a private company. This is a close proximation to what they ought to be doing. I take exception to long term, monopolistic contracts, though. The benefits of competition are lost when the ink dries. Contracts should be short term and/or divided along some lines like geographical areas. <br />
<br />
Parks are a good example. Open to the public. Purchased, equipped, staffed and maintained by general taxes, they are often accessible by fee. Additionally, some users and locations are fee exempt, others pay a hefty amount. <br />
<br />
This scheme of delivering government services is Naut Right.Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-22397281285937289522011-12-11T08:53:00.000-08:002011-12-11T08:53:52.668-08:00Explaining more at the well means less at the pump - for gasoline.First, another link telling more positive news coming from U.S. energy production: <a href="http://www.timeslive.co.za/scitech/2011/12/08/us-shale-oil-seen-rising-fast">US Oil Shale Seen Rising Fast</a><br />
<br />
The Saudis have used production to control prices since 1973, when we had our first oil embargo, courtesy of them and Henry Kissinger. They know this game. It's too obvious that increased supply puts downward pressure on price. What is not so obvious is the vicious circle this can catch the market into riding. If the Saudis feel compelled to maintain revenues large enough to generate near same gross profits that they have for so long, before this new competitor arrived, they have to pump more to make up for lost margins when new supply drops prices. That additional quantity in the market further presses down on prices, leading to another decision to live with less profit or increase supply again until revenues generate profits equal with the past. This could continue until the market becomes saturated and no increases in supply can be bought up. This is a classic equilibrium sequence for any market. <br />
<br />
The flip side is that the Saudis could elect to withdraw production in order to keep prices where the margins for profit are maintained. The risk for the Saudis is that the lost gross profits might not sustain their hold on their kingdom, which is now that of a benevolent king. Well, in a few regards. They can be brutal when it suits them. They could choose a chancy road of supression of their subjects, but then spring might come to Saudi Arabia. They don't want that. One other choice they would have would be to cash in their holdings of American assets, until that runs out. Lastly, thet can choose a more frugal lifestyle, which if that were in them, one might think they would have already done so in order to quiet criticisms of their lifestyles juxtaposed against that of their tent bound, camel ridden subjects. <br />
<br />
Its going to be interesting.Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-77204394508751038112011-12-09T11:28:00.000-08:002011-12-09T11:30:31.810-08:00Fixing the TSA - Congress whittles with the wrong end of the knifeCongresswoman Marsha Blackburn introduced H.R. 3608, the STRIP ACT as reported in <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/198357-house-gop-looks-to-strip-tsa-screeners-of-officer-title?page=2#comments">The Hill</a> .<br />
All it does is strip the title of officer from TSA employees who have not taken LE training. <br />
<br />
My congressman got an earful from me. Summing my complaint, I wrote that the TSA is the congressionally coreographed victory dance for Al Queda and the Taliban. All H.R. 3608 does is rename a character in the playbill. Its an insult, a waste of time and not worthy of my opinion on the merits of its passage. <br />
<br />
Abolish the TSA. Put the duty, responsibility and liability for the traveling public onto the transport company. <br />
<br />
When you whittle with the wrong end of the knife you won't cut much wood, you will bleed and people will laugh at your stupidity; no matter you thought you were whittling a gift for your hecklers.Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-45269141011892424732011-11-16T14:16:00.000-08:002011-11-16T15:11:23.251-08:00Exasperated Europe turns to crowdsourcing for answers<a href="http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02057/economia_2057543c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="287" width="460" src="http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02057/economia_2057543c.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
Found this interesting at the 17:21 mark.<br />
See also the link in the first comment to locate the text about this.<br />
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8846201/Debt-crisis-live.html"></a><br />
<br />
It is very oddly reassuring that the European money changers have gone hi-tech with an iPad app to invite a crowd-sourcing solution to the eurozone economic crisis. But there you have it. I have more faith in the people working through a faux free market exercise than I do central planners. I admit there are going to be a huge number of central planning, commie, socialistic, and aristocratic solutions profered. The market solutions will shine through.<br />
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8846201/Debt-crisis-live.html"></a>Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-63751285146290170232011-10-11T05:23:00.000-07:002011-10-11T05:24:31.374-07:00New find of natural gas And oil in eastern U.S.I will let the link lay out the facts. First, are we really awash in carbon based energy? Second, should there be renewed emphasis on Abiogenesis as the theory for oil formation? <br />
<br />
The link from the greatest site: <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/129496/"></a>Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-58284970762822541962011-10-10T05:48:00.000-07:002011-10-10T05:48:24.601-07:00Dems abandon Obama on Gunwalker- Obama has a way out!<a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gunwalker-dems-abandoning-ship/2/">Dems abandoning ship on Gunwalker</a> linked to <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com"></a> <br />
<br />
Issa and Grassley should invoke the Truman doctrine, "The Buck Stops Here." They do that by asking the president how he failed to know that an operation of this magnitude and consequence went on right under his nose without his knowledge. While it is plausible that such a thing could happen, it opens the question, what else goes on under the auspices of presidential authority that he is unaware of.<br />
<br />
Further, if he didn't know about this, how could he know what else goes on unbeknownst to him. Should we be able to trust that the president has the reigns of the executive branch firmly in his own grasp? It would seem not. This thing goes farther than itself, then. It implicates the whole authority and command of the president. <br />
<br />
Indeed, this is the manifestation of a failed Truman doctrine; a doctrine that acts as the pinking shears on the drapes of plausible deniability. The Truman doctrine cuts away the veil the presidents always try to use to protect themselves. The only protection faithful to his oath and duties is to vigorously expose and prosecute anyone who has abused his trust in the name of his office. There's no other way out.Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-75905230075353788202011-10-06T17:35:00.000-07:002011-10-06T17:41:45.551-07:00How local governments force you to waste gas.The by-pass. It is one of my pet peeves. Drive down a busy thoroughfare and every big box store, every chain restaurant and every corner gas station has to have it's own traffic light. Our town calls their main commercial thru street the by-pass. It's nothing of the sort. All that remains of the street moniker is a nod to good intentions of a day long gone by. Hoping to decongest downtown traffic by rerouting thru traffic, they built a new road; the by-pass. Every Soul with an ounce of commerce sense wanted to capture that traffic. Today, downtown is dead and by-passing the town has become an energy gulping, exhaust belching, traffic nightmare. The town next over to the west, Kokomo, IN is adding a by-pass around their by-pass. Do local government officials take the blue pill, ala The Matrix, with their oath of office. Do they not know they are creating a new venue for commerce and consequently traffic lights, congestion and wasted gas? How do they think they're going to stop it? It will just cause the business on the old by-pass to struggle, just like downtown. <br />
<br />
Freeways- the oxymoron of fast auto travel in the U.S. Put one near a city and every town street that can see the freeway with 35X binoculars wants an exit ramp to lure traffic. If that's not half bad, what is bad is that local traffic climbs on the freeway and uses it as a local thoroughfare w/o speed limits or traffic lights. That is how rush hour got invented. Wasting your gas sitting still on a freeway with a 70 mph speed limit because everyone going from one end of town to the other wants to get on the "freeway". Thru traffic should be stopped or shunted from an hour either side of the rush hour. It's too late to stop local traffic. I kid. It's a nightmare. Indianapolis and Chicago are bent on creating more of them. Of course, having taken the blue pill they're oblivious. <br />
<br />
Leading me to, freeway construction. In the summer gas prices go way up to capture the increased demand due to summer vacation travel. So what do the blue pill eaters do? Dig up miles and miles of good freeway to put down miles and miles of good freeway when everyone in the country is on them. At least the color and the stripes look nice for the winter driving crowd, which are the locals, who it wasn't meant for in the first place. We get to squeeze in, slow down, sometimes to a crawl for hours so that my taxes can go to a paving construction company who causes me to spend more on gas so he can recycle some of my taxes to a campaign kitty for the blue pill eaters in Washington, D.C. Makes perfect sense. <br />
<br />
Country lanes- I try to get around downtown and the by-pass by taking the county lanes. The blue pill people at county government have me covered. It seems like every intersection has become a four way stop. Nine times out of ten, no one meets me at the country lane intersection. Obeying the law demands I stop, wasting precious time and gasoline. For what? One excuse is to deter speeding. When I was a teen, the race was the quarter mile. You'd be stopped by the half mile. Stop signs every mile do nothing to deter that. If one wanted to go many miles that fast they could go to the freeway. Oh, wait. Scratch that. <br />
<br />
I have read this excuse after an accident suffering a tragic death, usually a pretty teen girl or young mom, never for a geezer. The extra two stop signs are to prevent another tragic accident. Actually the fact that this logic doesn't disqualify a person from ending out their term as an elected official or employ as a street maintenance person signifies we are, none of us, too smart for allowing it to go on. The two stop signs that were already there when the accident happened didn't prevent the accident. A person didn't look who was stopped or was supposed to stop. Another sign won't prevent that from happening again. Four way stops and traffic light corners have accidents all the time. People being stupid, distracted or plain old not paying attention cause accidents. Not a lack of a four way stop. <br />
<br />
Commercial traffic in thoroughfares should be routed to frontages that dump out on the by-pass at fewer locations, giving thru traffic a freer reign and less wasting of gas. Freeways should have every other exit ramp in city jurisdictions shut down to keep local traffic off. Country lanes should allow the naturally used thru streets to travel in relative unobstructed flow except where a naturally used cross roads or State highways intersects it. <br />
<br />
We waste tons of gas and money with traffic flow plans that have nothing to do with traffic flow or safety. They are about commerce and feel good responses to grieving relatives of dead drivers. The future governments should eat the red pill. Get real. They should modify these wasteful patterns. Roads should be repaired when they need it, not on a schedule or when the budget can be plumped up. STOP signs should enhance flow. Exit ramps should only be for intersecting major State highways and a few select city accesses.<br />
<br />
The government considers energy self-sufficiency a national security priority. They can help us help them achieve it by designing traffic flow patterns that accomplish that objective.Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-17851570428121243302011-10-04T16:38:00.000-07:002011-10-04T16:38:46.922-07:00The TSA had pled incompetence once too manyAgain and again TSA employees use their tin badges to sexually molest , intimidate and threaten citizens. Each and every time, without exception the TSA issues statements to the effect that proper procedures and policies were not observed by the TSA employee. They promise that these policies and procedures will be reviewed with the employees to prevent any further mistakes. Sometimes they even might apologize. <br />
<br />
The question needs to change. We citizens have been asking for compassion, restraint, changes. Sometimes the TSA changes, sometimes they don't. Now is the time to ask how long the citizens are expected to tolerate incidents like this one: <a href="http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/10/04/breast-cancer-survivor-lori-dorn-says-she-endured-humiliating-patdown-at-jfk/">humiliating Pat Down of Breast Cancer Survivor</a> before we can assert with a minimum of certainty that the TSA is unable, unwilling and resisting making changes in response to the criticisms and, quite frankly, indecent treatment of citizens exercising a right to travel. <br />
<br />
The justification for this quagmire of bureaucratic lewdness isn't supported by the facts or their success at making the airways safer.<br />
<br />
If the government really wanted to make the airways safer they would encourage certain people to conceal carry. Law enforcement, military and ex-military, citizens with exemplary records. This show has to have a curtain call.Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-78068054389638374062011-09-30T07:51:00.000-07:002011-09-30T07:55:21.933-07:00Peak Oil: An ideas whose Time has not comeFrom my favorite blog, <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/">Instapundit</a><br />
<br />
An oil boom in North American radically changes the future. Whereas just two years ago the term peak oil had gained acceptance as the present condition and heretofore had laid our dismal future before us now seems so ahead of it's time. Way too far ahead. <br />
<br />
Read this short blog post: <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/128847/">North American Oil Boom</a>Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-73805758192369180582011-09-30T07:38:00.000-07:002011-09-30T07:38:33.712-07:00<a
href="http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2011/09/30/does_fast_and_furious_put_impeachment_on_the_table/page/full/">Does Fast and Furious Put Impeachment on the Table?</a><br />
<br />
The following was my own comment made in the comments ection of the article.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Here is the trap Obama has made for himself. Plausible deniability fails as a defense when the administration obstructs senate oversight. If no one can be identified by a showing of evidence, then the Truman doctrine goes into effect. The one that says the buck stops here. He is ultimately responsible. When Obama figures that out, subsequently flinging the doors open to a search of the record he will then have offered proof in open view of obstruction of justice. P.s. Watch Solyndra turn out to be a money laundering scheme for F&F.</blockquote>Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-3089579258634981732011-09-29T06:52:00.000-07:002011-09-29T06:52:12.697-07:00There Ought to be a LawThis is another story of a DEA drug bust, gone half bad. Once again Leviathan intimidates an innocent couple while executing a raid based on false or incorrect information. <br />
There is a rare and happy ending. No dogs were shot. No children abducted. No woman humiliated. No husband beaten or shot through and through. The owners answered the knock. What? They can do this now? Answered the questions put by the agents, declaring the sought suspect was not there and no acquaintenvpce of theirs. Here is the kicker. The refused the DEA entry without a warrant. <br />
Again, what? You mean they organized a raid without a warrant? Is this passé now? <br />
There ought to be a law. Whenever a persons liberty, property, health or life is taken during a preplanned government action the citizen must prevail in any suit against said agency and all the actors involved. As it stands the law excuses the agency for logical but arcane reasons and often excuses the agents directly involved because there were doing a duty. These excuses and defenses ought not be in our legal system when an act is preplanned. <br />
So if a citizen, his dog or his front door get the weight of government authority pressed upon them improperly the citizen is entitled to every defense including the castle doctrine, though most of the time that is going to get the citizen killed. <br />
Here is the story that prompted this post: <a href="These excuses and defenses ought not be in our legal system, especially when an act is preplanned.Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-64040236298984737552011-09-25T09:52:00.000-07:002011-09-25T09:52:08.189-07:00A Prominent addition to my Son of a Bitch list<a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-administration-ban-asthma-inhalers-over-environmental-concerns_594113.html">Asthma Inhaler Ban</a><br />
<br />
Let me make it official. Obama went from political opponent, requiring of me a level of respect due any other citizen and the more so as the duly elected holder of the office of the President of the United States slipping into last place on my son of a bitch list. My grandson relies on these. The gloves are off, you son of a bitch!Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-38612146887522866362011-09-25T07:57:00.001-07:002011-09-25T08:07:37.510-07:00My daughter's song to her sonsGODSPEED (Sweet Dreams) by the Dixie Chicks, written by Radney Foster http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqaBof47pmY<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqaBof47pmY">Godspeed(Sweet Dreams)</a> <br />
<br />
Dragon tales and the "water is wide" <br />
Pirate's sail and lost boys fly <br />
Fish bite moonbeams every night <br />
And I love you <br />
Godspeed, little man <br />
Sweet dreams, little man <br />
Oh my love will fly to you each night <br />
on angels wings <br />
Godspeed <br />
Sweet dreams <br />
<br />
The rocket racer's all tuckered out <br />
Superman's in pajamas on the couch <br />
Goodnight moon, we'll find the mouse <br />
And I love you <br />
Godspeed, little man <br />
Sweet dreams, little man <br />
<br />
Oh my love will fly to you each night <br />
on angels wings<br />
Godspeed, Sweet dreams <br />
<br />
God bless mommy and match box cars <br />
God bless dad and thanks for the stars <br />
God hears "Amen", wherever we are <br />
And I love you <br />
Godspeed, little man <br />
Sweet dreams, little man <br />
<br />
Oh my love will fly to you each night on angels wings <br />
Godspeed <br />
Godspeed <br />
Sweet dreamsNaut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-14629643530082547292011-09-24T07:53:00.001-07:002011-09-24T10:33:42.056-07:00My Conspiracy Theory on Fast and Furious and Solyndra Two separate articles posted this week reported that Solyndra executives pleaded the Fifth before a congressional committee seeking to uncover wrong doing in the federal loan deal to Solyndra, the solar panel company. Solyndra went bankrupt 17 months after receiving a $535 million dollar government loan ostensibly to promote green energy and create jobs. Where did all that money go? Why did the executives plead the fifth?
The usual political graft comes into play. However, so far it seems Obama invested in the company before a name change and campaign contributions were made to the Obama campaign all appear to be above board and reported. No matter the stink of it, the investment and contributions seem to be in compliance with the law.
In another article by <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-did-solyndra-spend-all-that-money/245528/">Megan McArdle</a>, she lays out the step by step of the money trail. In it she lays out the poor or stupid, depending on, management of the company.
So here's the question. Who pleads the Fifth to cover up perfectly legal campaign contributions and the perfectly legal, if idiotic, bankrupting of a company? What is to hide? The world already knows the corporate officers made a public ass of themselves. What are the potential criminal activities that they are hiding behind the Fifth to protect themselves from a prosecution?
The conspiracy raises it's ugly head right here. The whole thing is a ruse, a camouflage. The Obama personal investment, the graft, crony capitalism, the loan, even the bankruptcy are all a misdirection play. Oh, what a ruse. Had they not pled the Fifth it might have worked, too. But that plea makes no sense in light of what we do know. It's what we don't know and at this point and don't even suspect that underlies the plea.
What needs to be investigated with the equivalent of legal pick axes and dynamite is any connection between Solyndra and Fast and Furious. How do I put the two together? The stonewalling at the top of government against the senate investigation on Fast and Furious makes no sense unless the very top levels of government are guilty of involvement. At this point in the investigation it makes no sense that if the top layers of government were innocent they wouldn't be throwing the guilty or suspected under the bus, wholesale. This thing is too big to play face saving games. Whoever is guilty, if found out, is going to be ground to dust by the legal system, not to mention their fates if Mexico gets ahold of them.
Here is where a conspiracy theory gets dicey. There appears, as yet, no direct connection between Fast and Furious and Solyndra. But for a conspiracists, that's all the more enticing. Was Solyndra a money laundering scheme to finance the illegal aspects of Fast and Furious? Was the objective of Fast and Furious to set the stage for draconian gun laws? Ah, another twist in the conspiracy theory. That is the most widely suspected objective. It makes sense. It's been an objective of the democrats and Obama forever. The BATFE would be very willing to be played a dupe in such a scheme. Yet it has one glaring weakness. The law and the culture of the United States are the exact opposite of ripe for such an opportunity. It would be akin to driving your head into a concrete wall to cure a headache. When you take time to layer the logistics of such a plan over the expected consequences it makes no sense. Even in light of the boisterous and cocky Obama administration that have bullied through Obamacare, TARP, fiscal stimulus and the debt ceiling imbroglios, this would seem an uncharacteristic stretch for Obama. So what other scenario could be excavated from the circumstances that might stand up to logic? How about the overthrow of the Mexican government by the drug cartels? They got the guns. The guns were traced but no one has bothered to try to trace the funds. Yet this was the exact reason the operation was intended in the first place, i.e. to trace the guns to the leaders of the cartels. BATFE and the IRS wouldn't have expected to find the cartel leaders in personal possession of the guns. No. But they would have expected to be able to trace the source of the funding for the buys. Unless. Unless the funding came from the U.S. Government. Ah, but that in itself is way to risky. Government accounting may be sloppy but it is volumous. Eventually someone might have ferreted out the source if it came from the U.S. Government. Considering that tracing the funds to the cartel leaders would have been equally as difficult it only stands to reason the organizers on the U.S. Side were going to have to launder the funding. SOLYNDRA! Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-69636774899361321092011-09-24T07:02:00.001-07:002011-09-24T07:02:40.436-07:00Governor Rick Perry Fumbles Immigration In the debate this week in Orlando, Governor Rick Perry, TX, Republican candidate for president makes the contention that fencing the 2,200 mile border is beyond the capability of the United States. The number of miles of freeway in the United States is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System">48,876 statute miles</a>. It took 35 years to build. So a fence that is 5% in length and not near as capital and materially intensive should take less than 21 months, given the same effort. He's Naut Right.
The defense budget is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States">$663.8 Billion</a>. He is still Naut Right. The primary duty of the office of President is National Defense. A secure border would seem the first order of that priority.
Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3569809210463814726.post-86851719698281369372011-09-21T15:37:00.000-07:002011-09-21T15:37:03.953-07:00What is the proper counter to the Fast and Furious Scandal?The story at the link will further explain the process of the senate investigation, it's purpose, some of the roadblocks the committee is up against, the next steps likely to be taken and some of the informed speculation of Senator Issa as to the apparant real objective of the operation. <br />
<br />
What I would like to pose a rhetorical question to is this. What should be the reaction both as to law and policy? Should H.B 822 pass, giving a full faith and credit protection to state concealed carry permits? Should the Federal Firearms Act(s) be amended to encouage greater ownership of firearms? Should BATFE have itself pruned to BATE?<br />
<br />
Here is the link: <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/128352/">Issa Presser on Fast and Furious</a>Naut Righthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10521013148002958824noreply@blogger.com0