Jimmy Kimmel vs Charlie Kirk

While Charlie Kirk may have been a well-known figure in his  particular arena, he didn't have access to the 1.04 million or more viewers that wise guy Jimmy Kimmel lured in nightly. The frat boys that once tuned in to Kimmel, Stephen Colbert and  Jimmy Fallon made it a point to end their pizza and beer-fueled pre-bed time with an economy sized dose of fraternity humor.

Those circumstances didn't seem to make the TV stars particularly effective in a political sense. Regurgitating jokes written earlier that afternoon might be funny in a post-modern sense but don't seem to have a serious effect on the audience. When is the last time someone attempted to turn off the lights forever on an over-paid bozo that needs a shave?

In a somewhat different circumstance, what if someone like the recently departed Robert Redford or Gene Hackman or David Lynch would have been the subject of criticism or humor on the basis of their perceived failings? 

Empowered Changemakers

 It's university admissions time. The flack people at Hamline University have apparently given up on convincing prospective students that attendance at their school will result in an increase in knowledge or the desired future income. But they can point out that becoming part of this particular student body will give them the tools to effect change. 

As is a familiar tactic in political campaigns, they know that everyone wants changes in something but enumerating examples will enthuse some and repel others. It's one of the most cynical of all propaganda techniques. Any high school graduate that takes the pseudo-message of this billboard seriously needs more than a liberal arts education.  

What Herbert Spencer Would Say

What Herbert Spencer Would Say About The Federal Reserve Reconstruction Fiasco

 

The restoration of two buildings used by the Federal Reserve Bank in Washington, D.C. has ballooned from an initial cost of $1.8 billion to $2.5 billion, according to the Financial Times. People in the media are so unsurprised by this that they attribute it to POTUS Trump's antipathy for the current head of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell.

A different viewpoint from the past doesn't address this situation directly but was expressed by a thinker unique in his time or any other, Herbert Spencer, (1820-1903) , who was very critical of the machinations of any form of government. His ideas about situations like the Federal Reserve  follow:

 

                               Herbert Spencer

 If people at large tolerate the extravagance, the stupidity, the carelessness, the obstructiveness, daily exemplified in the military, naval, and legal administrations, much more will they tolerate them when exemplified in departments which are neither so vitally important nor occupy so large a space in the public mind. The vices of officialism must exist throughout public organizations of every kind, 

 

 

                         

Said By Ike

 “Akin to, and largely responsible for, the sweeping changes in our industrial and military posture; has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution; research has become central; and it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted by, for, or at the direction of, the Federal government. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money, is ever present and gravely to be regarded. In holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific and technological elite.”
 

-President Dwight Eisenhower, in his farewell address

NASA To Refocus On Space

Sean Duffy, head of the US Dept. of Transportation and acting NASA Administrator said on Aug. 14 that NASA will "move aside" from climate and earth science and concentrate solely on space exploration. 

If the change in emphasis makes sense it should be extended to NASA in its entirety. The 2024 budget of the agency is $24.875 billion. A work force of over 18,000 professionals push the boundaries of science and technology to, as NASA proudly states, "contribute to various projects that aim to explore outer space and further human understanding of our universe."

Yeah, OK. Thanks to the billions of dollars spent in the effort all that there is to show for it are a few moon rocks and some artists' renderings of far away stars. While the accomplishment of going to the moon is perhaps something to produce pride in the simple minded, it hasn't produced any practical benefits for the proles that have involuntarily financed it. Further understanding of our universe, at least further than it goes now, isn't necessary for further human progress. We'll be just fine if we don't know a thing about black holes and stars 700 million light years away. If enough people care about whatever knowledge might be available, let them voluntarily pay for it.

 

ar.inspiredpencil.com      A Moon Rock 

 

700 Million Light Years From Earth

That would be 214.7 parsecs or 4,123 trillion miles, the distance from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to an exploding supernova and an adjacent black hole somewhere in the depths of space described here. 

Nothing could possibly be more inconsequential or meaningless to the life of any human on earth, in the past, now, or in any version of the future. The idea that spending by national agencies based on tax receipts for space exploration without genuine democratic approval is wrong.  

 

Defense Dept. Eating Its Own Seed Corn

Frank Kendall, Secretary of the Air Force during several Democratic presidencies, is concerned that reductions in basic science funding to American universities will result in the US population speaking Mandarin in the near future, as he explains in an article for the Military Times.

Academic researchers apply for grants from federal agencies who then award them with funding. In some cases an agency might initiate research by an established program on a subject related to something that is already being studied.

What sort of basic research would be most effective in stemming the advance of the yellow horde waiting to spring their Red command economy on the innocent West? Supersonic aircraft, nuclear carriers and submarines, nuclear weapons, poisonous gases, mind control, robot soldiers,drones, communicable diseases, orbital weapons, Havana syndrome, etc. have already moved from the drawing board to reality. Can we even imagine weaponry of a more "advanced" dimension? In fact, since there are enough nuclear warheads and devices to carry them to targets in the possession of a number of countries, isn't a general war now believed to be national suicide?

It looks like there's a chance for diplomacy to settle some of the big arguments but the less civilized, especially in parts of Africa, are dedicated to the most primitive forms of violence. Is there a chance that enlightened and well-financed American academia could figure out a way to bring peace to a cruel world without blowing a lot of it up?