Proto Fascist or Moto Democrat?

"What does Giorgia Meloni's Win Mean for Italy?" asks Peter Zeihan, conjuring up the ghost (or is it the Spirit?) of Italian Fascism, on account of her "God, country, family" mantra.

Benito Mussolini, the Godfather of fascism, was a socialist. Back in 1964, I was in tenth grade reading a novel by Upton Sinclair (himself a Socialist) and he introduced a loud-mouthed Socialist agitator named Mussolini. Imagine my surprise. Turns out Mussolini modeled his fascist party on Lenin's Bolshevik Party, which ruthlessly ran the United Soviet Socialist Republics of the day (aka Russia). True, Benito was all about "the country" as long as he and his gang were running everything in the country, but as for God and family -- not so much. The fascists had party members in every organization to enforce the party line, so the people who ran businesses were run by the party.

According to Upton Sinclair, the National Socialist "brownshirt" street brawlers who slugged it out with the communist/socialist Antifa during the Weimar Republic were also Socialists -- so it was kind of an intramural sport. Later Stalin's USSR and Hitler's Third Reich found common ground -- Poland. Given the history, I never agreed with the progressive propensity to label small government conservatives as fascists, at least here in the U.S. After all, what American Conservatives want to conserve are things like the Bill of Rights and local governments with local control.

As for Italy's political future: who knows?

Whither Italy?

International Money Monkey Business

Jeff Snider has a YouTube video where he explains international money flows.

For a long time, just to keep it simple, I've told people that the U.S.A. imports air conditioners and other stuff and exports debt -- mostly government debt -- as well as land (not the dirt, but the ownership of the dirt) and other assets. Wall Street likes this because they market the debt and manage the assets and Washington DC politicians like this because they can spend an extra trillion in the run-up to an election without having to raise taxes (to think they will curb that habit before it's too late is, perhaps, asking too much). Foreign financiers use the dollar in dealings with other nations. They also consider the U.S. a safe haven (even when they are ideologically committed to destroying the U.S. -- see the Chinese Politburo).

I don't think there is a shortage of Eurodollars so much as an increase in moral hazard. In the 1990s there was a belief that China would bolster the world financial system. Unfortunately, that would require the CCP to give up control of their national economy (and they do see it as theirs). It's become apparent the communists will not let that happen and are quite willing to stiff investors -- especially foreign investors -- to keep control. The killing of the Chinese capitalist chicken has scared the Eurodollar money-monkies and caused a tightening of lending standards while increasing the "safe-haven" appeal of the dollar.

Then there's Putin punishing the world and the world punishing Putin...

Is the dollar sluggish or thuggish?

Why, it's either too loud or not loud enough

Apparently, I'm not the only person annoyed by the sound quality of current movies. I'll turn it up to understand what the actors are saying and then turn it down when the music starts blaring or the explosions start exploding.

Mangini says that in the old days, "you could count on an actor's theatricality to deliver a line to the back seats." But acting styles have changed so dramatically over the years that it has become much more difficult to capture great sound on the set. When actors adopt that more naturalistic style, "it's even harder for the production sound mixer to capture really quality sound. Now we get those compromised microphone positions here in post-production, reaching for a dialogue line that is barely intelligible or maybe even mumbled because it's an acting style, and already, we're behind the 8-ball in trying to figure out a way to make all of those words intelligible."

slashfilm.com: here's why movie dialogue is difficult to understand

More on the Ohio Senate Race

 I live in Tim Ryan's district and I was just out driving around and didn't see any yard signs for him (I saw one for J.D. Vance). Normally the Democrats would have them out by this time so I take that lack of signs as a sign of low enthusiasm. Of course, they may just be worried about their semi-fascist friends and relatives (when I first heard Joe Biden use the term I thought it applied to those 18-wheelers that pass you on the interstate when the snow is deep -- you know, semi-fascist. Come to find out he was talking about me).

Ohio Senate Race

I mentioned here a few months back that Tim Ryan sounded like Trump while J.D. Vance sounded like he might miss out on a dinner invitation if he sounded like Trump. Then the polls came in and J.D. had to kiss Trump's behind (according to Trump) to get the Donald to rally support for him in Youngstown (Ryan's district -- traditionally a heavily Democrat district which Trump carried). It took about two minutes for Trump to eviscerate Ryan (politically, not actually -- in case a never-Trumper should read this).

Wow, "Operation Flee" was an almost Victory!

Last Wednesday, August 25, I checked the MSN newsfeed before bedtime. The headline made it sound like the Afghan evacuation was now an ongoing success. This was based on the number of people flown out of the country. Apparently, they decided that by turning it into a pure numbers game, they can make "operation flee" sound like a triumph: it does not matter who the evacuees are, just crowd them on planes, fly them out, and pump up the numbers. Then on Thursday the terror attack happened. I figured this would be a three day set-back for their propaganda counter offensive. So Biden's speech the other night (where he basically said "never have so many, owed so much, to so few White House Staff") came as no surprise.

Not to say that damaged controlled stopped in the immediate aftermath of the suicide bombing. On Thursday, I was listening to CBS Radio news and their "correspondent" informed me that President Biden had been warning Americans to leave the country "for a long time." So I waited for an example of this warning. The correspondent told me that on Tuesday the President told Americans to leave. Wait. From Tuesday to Thursday is a long time? Well, if you are surrounded by people who want to kill you, it must seem that way. Of course, two days before the Taliban entered Kabul (with the administration's approval, if you believe the Washington Post -- which does feel awkward, I'll admit) the administration made it sound like potential evacuees had plenty of time to pack. Is there ever an appropriate time to panic? Apparently not.

Starships and Stay-ships, Moonbases and Mars-bases, Fun...Profit?

NASA hopes to return to the moon by 2024 (the Artemis Program) and chose SpaceX’s Starship for use as its lunar lander (designated HLS – Human Landing System). The Starship is powered by three ingredients: liquid methane, liquid oxygen, and an electric car magnet and human dynamo named Elon Musk. Musk plans a kind of million man migration to Mars (which will include other genders – I used “man” to keep the alliteration rolling). For Elon, going to the moon is a little like Coca-Cola deciding to produce apple juice because it’s got spare capacity at its bottling plant. In fact, Elon has started so many different projects in the last few years that I have to wonder about his attention span.

Nasa’s HLS choice caused chagrin in the World’s Richest Guy, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, whose moon lander floundered. Bezos’ space launch start-up, Blue Origin,  joined established aerospace contractors to submit a competing bid. Upon losing, he immediately mobilized an army of lawyers and lobbyists to put a stop to the SpaceX contract. They argue that spending 3 billion dollars on Elon Musk’s more capable lander is nuts when you can spend ten billion on their much less capable one (this being established DC tradition and the only one congress holds sacred). Now, I won’t claim to be an astronaut, but this effort to squash the upstart start-up gives me hope that their lunar lander will work. After all, if SpaceX fails, it will fail quickly, given the promised pace of Starship development. Then Blue Origin, with its pocket-sized politicians, could pick up the pieces and profit. 

Starship ranks as the world’s most powerful rocket. Mated with its first stage “super-heavy” booster, it is taller than the Statue of Liberty atop her pedestal. The Lunar-lander portion alone is as tall as a 17 story building (minus the thirteenth floor, of course). Both the booster and the starship will be reusable – and SpaceX intends to build a lot of Starships in a variety of configurations (it’s a “cheaper by the dozen” kinda deal). The lunar-lander could carry 100+ tons of cargo to the surface with ample pressurized living space for the astronauts. They, and the cargo, can descend from the Starship penthouse to the lunar surface by way of an elevator – down, please. The possibilities here are enough to boggle even a stubbornly un-boggled mind, such as my own.

Given the possibilities, the project, as originally envisioned by NASA, seems rather unambitious. The contract covers one “roundtrip moon-trip” for four Astronauts, with hopefully more to follow at a rather sluggish pace. Artemis is somewhat more capable than the Apollo program from fifty years ago. This expensive turkey is unlikely to survive in the congressional slaughterhouse for long. What is needed is something much more inspiring that can mobilize public support. Allow me to offer a few suggestions, a not-so-little dream project for Mr. Musk to pursue while I indulge in my afternoon naps.

Initially, it will start with three dedicated Starship lunar-landers for the moonbase. Ship number one and two will have their retro-rockets mounted around the top of the ship to minimize the kick-up of lunar dust during landing (as is currently conceived). The first lander is maximized for cargo and the second for astronauts. Both will land on the moon upright. After unloading the cargo from the carrier, the astronauts will prepare a long and narrow pad for starship three (the pad might be packed lunar soil covered by a tarp).

Starship number three will be a “stay-ship,” built with its small retro-rockets along its side, rather than around the top, so it can land lengthwise. After it is secured in place, this ship’s engines and fuel tanks will be removed, allowing the entire volume of the ship to be used as a lunar base (the Starship is nine meters in diameter and 50 meters long – I’m using metric measurements since it has left the U.S.). It would be designed and built on Planet Earth with this end in mind. The Stayship can carry much of the required supplies for this transformation in its cargo bay. The powerful raptor engines – configured for operation in a vacuum – will be repurposed to power space “tow motors.” At some point, these will go into lunar orbit with containers full of “exports” and return with containers full of “imports,” after a careful rendezvous with the cargo ship. The removed fuel tanks of the “stay-ship” will be used to store methane and oxygen to fuel the space tugs. Oxygen is rather abundant on the moon, molecularly bound with iron, for instance. Oxygen is also found in the moon-water that clings as ice to the dark side of craters, but moon-water might be a bit too precious to use as a fuel source. Methane, the fuel used by starships, appears rather rarer. 

At some point, the “astronaut” starship will return to Earth orbit with some or all of the astronauts. It will then move cargo and personnel back and forth from Earth orbit to Lunar orbit. The space “tow motors” will pick up supplies in lunar orbit and deliver them to the surface. A space-based warehouse might be called for (perhaps parked at a Lagrange Point, where the interplay of the gravitational fields of the earth and moon will keep it in a stable orbit between the earth and the moon).

Additional “stay-ships” will land at the moonbase and have their guts removed. These ships will be equipped to make solar panels, smelt metals, and produce glass and ceramics for future base expansion. Aluminum and steel production on the moon could provide structural material for a ship bound for Mars but built on the moon. The stored guts of the stay-ships can be used for the Mars ships. These “Mars” ships will only travel in a vacuum or through an extremely thin Martian atmosphere, so they can be designed with this fact in mind. Liquid oxygen can be made on the moon. Perhaps supply ships could fill up with liquid oxygen in lunar orbit and leave liquid methane for the moon. With luck, trapped subsurface gases might be found on the moon (methane, CO, CO2, ammonia). 

At some point, the starship that was maximized for cargo and waited patiently on the lunar surface can be refueled and join the second starship in trips to Earth and back (or head to Mars).

So, two of the first products for lunar export could be rockets and LOX. The moon’s “comparative advantage” in trade might be its one-sixth of earth’s gravity. It could provide a port for large nuclear-powered ships to move about the solar system mining asteroids. If these ships came close to earth we’d hear those “what if it crashes in my neighborhood” scares that accompany such discussions.

This plan would require a larger “up-front” investment but could yield a lunar base that pays for its ongoing operation and might even provide a good return on the initial investment.  That will mean more opportunity for Blue Origin, Boeing, and other interested parties, so they should get their lobbyist to work on something more “inspiring,” rather than more costly.