New Ruskin

Lecture Notes 2015

Catalog of Courses
Intel Operations:
Psy Ops
Lecture Hall
Lecture Notes 2016
Lecture Notes 2015
Lecture Notes 2014
Lecture Notes 2013
Lecture Notes 2012
Lecture Notes: July 2008 - June 2010
Lecture Notes: May 07 - June 08
Lecture Notes: Oct. '05- April '07
Lecture Notes: September '05
Lecture Notes: August '05
Lecture Notes: July '05
Lecture Notes: June '05
Lecture Notes: May '05
Lecture Notes: April '05
Lecture Notes: March '05
Lecture Notes: January & February '05
Lecture Notes: December '04
Lecture Notes: November '04
Lecture Notes: October '04
Lecture Notes: September '04
Lecture Notes: August '04
Lecture Notes: July '04
Lecture Notes: June '04
Lecture Notes: May '04
Lecture Notes: April '04
Imus Protests April 2004
Last Will & Testament
Funeral Procession
Baghdad Claims Office: How I would settle Iraqi Prisoner Claims.
Top 40
Metaphysics 303
Who Killed Duane Garrett: Part II
This is what is Wrong with the Republican Party. Part I & Part II
A Public Letter to Rosie Allen
A Public Appeal to Governor Davis
How Don and Mike Removed the Evil One From MSNBC
Who Killed Duane Garrett? 3 Suspects: Motive Greed & Power
McGurk Tutorial
45 minutes and the Distortions of History
Don Imus Says Good Morning
Judgment Day



We Make What all the World Wants:  
The Ultimate Source of All Power
  -Knowledge !  


New Ruskin                October 26, 2015



Lecture Notes

Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC recently called Social Security “socialism” sounding very much like Bill O’Reilly of FOX who also calls government social spending socialism.   

However, socialism is the state ownership of the means of production. America’s welfare programs (such a Social Security) do not represent the ownership of the means of production.  (Indeed, it was decided not to invest the Social Security trust funds in stocks and bonds because the trust fund would have grown so large as to own most financial assets. (The system is a ‘pay as you go’ system in which current recipients are not paid back the funds they have paid into the system but instead are paid out of the current worker payee's contributions.))

If it is not socialism what is it?  Ludwig von Mises explains that all that can be said of these welfare transfers is that money is being redirected from the satisfaction of wants more urgently felt by the consumers to the satisfaction of wants less urgently felt by the consumers.

The consumers feel the desire for a day of shopping more than they feel the need for the Seventh Fleet.  Yet we as a society none the less transfer money from their more urgently felt need, a days shopping, to the satisfaction of their less urgently felt need, the Seventh Fleet.

Left to their own devices the old would live in poverty without the transfer payments of Social Security as the needs of the elderly are a less urgently felt need.  How do I know?  Because before Social Security the elderly lived in poverty.  Bismarck may have been competing with socialists for popular support when he created the old age pension system in Imperial Germany but the system of transfer payments  was not itself socialism.

These media personalities continue their discussion of public policy today as if we were still no further advanced than nineteenth century revolutionary labor movements contending in the streets against monarchies and military governments.

And see how it works to the rhetorical advantage of both:  the Liberal appears not as a simple minded good government proponent but as a socialist sorcerer conjuring up the righteous overthrow of the rich, by the simple device of Social Security checks; and the Conservative gets to play act as the defender of capitalism by “privatizing” Social Security and all the other “socialistic” programs of the welfare state.

Think if these two were simply discussing the transfer of money from those wants more urgently felt to the satisfaction of wants less urgently felt?  Where is the drama in that? (Or more likely the ratings?)  So they showboat about SOCIALISM!  The naves.

Requiring sprinklers in new construction is not socialism though it is something the consumers probably would less urgently demand on their own.  In any case it is not socialism.

Providing medical care for all is a less urgently felt need than other goods and services which are demanded by the consumer but it is not socialism to transfer income from the satisfaction of these other perceived needs to the providing of care.

In nations  with homogenous polities these questions of whether other wants should be left unsatisfied in order to provide care for the poor are not even asked; ‘of course we will take care of our brothers and sisters.’  In America with the diverse ethnic and racial and national origins of its polity there is no sense of unity so it is openly questioned whether more urgently felt wants should be left unsatisfied in order to aid the stranger, the foreigner, the other. 

Calling the health reforms that provide coverage for all ‘socialism’ is a convenient way of saying one does not want to forgo more urgently felt needs.  ‘Let them die,’ would be a more direct way of saying the same thing.

If you look at the industrial countries that have universal coverage they all have in common a national identity:  Japan, Germany, Brittan, France, Switzerland, (who have the expression the ‘Swiss Way’), all are united in a way that the United States of America will never know.  The American-Italians don’t care if the Irish get their operations, the Irish don’t care if the Blacks get their medicine, the Blacks couldn’t care less about therapy for the Jews this is the dark side of the American melting pot, no one gives a damn.

And the Left and Right play at favoring or opposing SOCIALISIM while our real problems go unanswered. 

The claim that the “customer is always right” is simply not true, and when applied to politics its falsity is even more glaring. Hitler’s party won a plurality and by parliamentary procedure was called on to form a government in 1933.  The voters were simply wrong.  Iowa, apart from its thirst for ethanol, selected President Huckabee and President Santorum before that.  If left to their own devices ‘the People’ would not urgently feel the need for firemen, police men, fire codes, etc., all these things having been worked out over hundreds of years for the benefit of the people but not because of the willing demand of any one resident acting alone; who do not urgently feel the need for fire hydrants near one’s home, or any of the thousand things provided even though they are not urgently demanded.   


 New Ruskin College             October 19, 2015



Lecture Notes

Trump characterized Mexican immigrants as rapists and murderers though he did “suppose there are some good ones.”  To characterize 12 million people this way is an outrage.  He went on to mock Jeb Bush’s statement that the immigrants come to America out of love for their families.  They remit $24 billion a year to Mexico, which is a lot of love.  But Trump cannot, will not, see their love, they are simply the subject for his ridicule.  He is so small.

Trump advocates for the forced mass deportation of the illegal immigrants and their children (who may be American citizens).  His supporters complain when he is pressed for details, for example,  Mrs. Billy Clinton asked if box cars would be pressed into service to transport 12 million people to our Southern border;  many thought this unfair.

They advocate mass deportation but complain when pressed for details.  For example will the deportees be allowed suitcases?  If so what size and weight?  Will they be forced to sell their real property as were the Japanese Americans during WWII?

Or is it just that neither Trump nor his supporters really care about the reality of what they advocate?  They simply enjoy hearing the demagogue Trump spout out these hateful words?  (David Duke has said he doubts Trump means what he says but still enjoys that there is someone out there giving voice to his ideas.)

Trump does not care about the suffering of 12 million immigrants forced out of America, for him his advocacy is simply an exercise in rhetoric; so our judgement of his hateful words must be tempered by the knowledge that he is a clown, a buffoon, a fool.

Probably he will not do what he says, probably what he says is not what he believes, and most likely it is all lies.  For example, his oft repeated line that he is too rich to be bought, fails to recognize that his wealth is proof that he has already been bought.

To days Washington Post (10-19-2015) reports Trump has a Super PAC that he helped set up, for which he solicited funding, with which he has coordinated his campaign;  in other words he has done all the things that he has condemned all the other candidates for doing.

Trump is a liar.

Oddly many are reassured by this fact, hoping that he will not actually do the things he advocates should he win.  Of course it is not all that clear what exactly he will do should he win.  He talks vaguely of a “beautiful, beautiful” secret plan to attack Isis that he claims he has developed on his own from what he has gathered from watching retired officers interviewed on FOX and elsewhere.  (This is typical of the shallowness of Trump.  He never cites books or articles or studies, etc., he is not an autodidactic, maybe he is a video-autodidactic.)

For example, when confronted with the statistics that there are fewer rapists and murderers among the immigrant population than the citizens at large he simply ignored the facts and has continued to repeat his slur never offering any studies to support his claims.      

As for his “beautiful” “secret” plan for Isis it appears that it is at least compatible with Russian forces in Syria for he has welcomed Putin into the fight; a man with whom he has said he can “do business.”  Indeed the two seem to have similar moral out looks for Trump has repeatedly advocated over the years that America should steal Iraqi oil, which is a war crime, not unlike Putin’s crime of invading the Ukraine, and annexing territory.  Except American soldiery cannot be used so meanly.  Trump appears not to know this, nor do the members of the press who devote so much time and column inches to him.

When asked to explain his verbal abuse of women he interrupted Megyn Kelly to abuse yet another woman; then went on to threaten Kelly saying “maybe I won’t be so nice to you.”  What did this imply?  A billionaire has a lot of power. If lessor pols, Jesse Jackson for example, can ruin the careers of reporters (Angela Parker & Barbara Reynolds) for reporting the truth about his finances, his double dealing, his blood Rolex, think then what a billionaire might do.  

Note that notwithstanding Jackson’s ruining the careers of two reporters for doing nothing more than reporting the truth about him, he is still brought out as an expert on Black affairs and civil rights and the poor by journalists who simply have no loyalty to their own profession.

So too Trump continues his campaign against Kelly who receives precious little support from her peers in the press.   [The press is mainly Liberal but being a Conservative is first of all to have a memory.]  

The odious Trump this weekend blamed George W. Bush for the Second World Trade Center attack, claiming he had not “kept America safe.”  Later Trump went further to say his harsh words about “immigrants” would have prevented the Second WTC attack.  (Note none of the attackers were immigrants.) 

There is nothing Trump will not say: no lie, no sanctimonious platitude, no unfounded accusation he will not make.  According to Trump everything he would do as President would be better, treaties, appropriations, military policy, foreign policy, job creation, everything you can imagine, and it will take your imagination for he offers not a clue how he would achieve any of these things. 

Trump is a charlatan.  Worse he is self-deluded.  Tell him that Congress handles appropriations, and the Senate treaties, and so on he loses interest. So why be President if you have no interest in public policy? 

Trump:  vanity candidate.

Very Truly Yours


Plinio Designori


                  August 16, 2015

Lecture Notes



Barack Obama

President of the United States

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Washington, D. C.


Your Excellency;


So we are not even going to try and persuade the Republicans?


OK.  You know your Secretary of State also voted for the Gulf War II?  You are able to work with him without recrimination.


In trying to build a coalition I do not see why it is necessary to go back to a point where the coalition members disagreed; why not start from the point of common agreement?  We all agree Iran should be kept in a box with regards to its nuclear ambitions.  The Allies came together and agreed on this plan.  We move from agreement to agreement not going back a decade to find a point where we disagreed.


Isis is guilty of war crimes, starting unjust war of aggression, killing civilians who dissented, genocide against the Yazidis, Christians, Muslims who were different from them, terrorism, murder of civilians; they are very bad people.


As it happens we need to reassure Netanyahu, the “Tribes with Flags” who want the bomb, the Prince of Jordan, the people of Syria and Iraq, and also demonstrate to the Iranians that we will use force when necessary. Overarching these regional concerns is the potential that Isis will use WMD and cause a mass casualty attack in America or Europe.  (They have demonstrated their willingness to make and use mustard gas.)  Our grand strategic situation requires the doom of Isis.


Rather than telling the generals what you will allow why not ask them how many divisions they need and say “yes?”  Tell them to go into Syria and destroy Isis.  Let the Iraqi Army take back their own cities once the flows of pay and men and ammunition are cutoff from the Isis who remain in the cities.


I know you hate like hell to commit American forces and this is just the point I suppose, so do the Iranians.  Do what you do not like doing and bring down the Isis terror network, and gain the support of the Republicans for the agreement. 


Not just uphold your veto but actually approve the agreement.


Very Truly Yours;


Plinio Designori                 July 15, 2015

Lecture Notes


Barack Obama

President of the United States

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Washington, D. C.


Your Excellency;

If Iran pursues nuclear weapons we should destroy their nuclear program and must overthrow their regime, as I have repeatedly said for these many years. However, with the disclosure of the framework and now the final agreement it seems to be a no brainer that if they are willing to halt development and allow inspection of their nuclear facilities our window of warning increases from months to a year then we need not strike now but can wait for better intelligence.

I think if you explain this agreement as being similar to a naval treaty of years past it would be more readily understood by my fellow Conservative Republicans.  The naval treaties of years past were not written by peaceniks or idealists but by cold eyed realists.

The inferior state and superior naval power entered into naval treaties in order to preserves the power balance.  Both sides found the preservation of the naval balance to be of mutual benefit.  The inferior state did not slip further downward but held its position and the superior naval power also held its superior position and avoided the additional expense of staying ahead of the inferior state.

Your most persuasive statement during your press conference were your last words when you pointed out that no harm had been done to prevent the Allies from striking Iran if Iran attempted a breakout and that in fact the agreement now allowed an extra seven or nine months of warning time that did not exist without the agreement.

I say these were your most persuasive words but there were many other points that you raised, for example the fact that this is a naval treaty (I mean a nuclear arms treaty) it is not a human rights treaty, it does not deal with terrorism, or the State of Israel (directly), or the size of the Iranian Army, etc.  This agreement is not a Swiss Army knife it cannot do everything. Asking that it do everything or one will withhold support appears simply childish.  The statesmen of the past who negotiated naval treaties would have regarded such criticism, and rightly so, as dilettantism. They were of a more sober generation, they dealt more plainly with the more base aspects of power.

Inspections were an issue in naval treaties also and the 24 day limit on the Iranians showing military sites (1)appears reasonable however if the Iranians fail to make this deadline “snapping back sanctions” I would argue is only one option, sending in a dozen cruise missiles would be another, (or if hardened just one).

I foresee many changes in the next ten or fifteen years of this agreement's life and I would for example recommend to the next administration that the United States abrogate all space treaties and establish a squadron of space dreadnaughts. Let us see if China can keep up with us in this arms race?! From space we can take control of the commanding heights. But of course if China wanted us to enter into a space naval treaty stabilizing the situation once our squadron was complete and our superior position was unassailable we could consider it.

But that is for the future.  For now we have the opportunity to avoid war and watch over Iran’s nuclear facilities extending the breakout time from a few months to a year possibly more.  A no brainer.  Show the Conservatives that it is not unlike the naval treaties of the past, not designed to end war, or what other fuzzy thinking they may have, but simply a contract in which the contracting parties suspend further developments and wait and watch:  status quo ante.


Very Truly Yours


Plinio Designori

1 undeclared sites                        June-6-2015

Lecture Notes

Eulogy  2nd Edition (with tweets)

Alan Watts commented that the creator was not a churchman.  For if he was a churchman we would find the universe populated by rosaries, crucifixes, and cathedrals.  These things are the things of churchmen but they are not the things of the creator of the universe. Do they remind us of that creator?

The stained glass at Chartres Cathedral, the medieval illuminated manuscripts, Michelangelo’s Pieta all meant to remind one of the creator.  Jesus said, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”(John 20:17) This statement is not a reminder of some distant God but is a reference to an immediate experience.   And is Jesus’ message that only he is “ascending to my and your Father, to my God and your God?” No, He holds out the reality that each of us can make this ascension:  “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’”? (John 10:34)  {The Law to which Jesus refers is perhaps in the Old Testament: “And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.””(Genesis 3:22)  No, though we may be as gods we cannot be allowed to live forever.}

So Alan Watts’ critique that churchmen think more about their books, candles, and bells than they do about the direct immediate experience of Jesus’ teaching has its point.  How immediate is His teaching?  Jesus says, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” (Mark 12:34)  So close in fact that you are only a moment of awareness away from entering into God’s kingdom and eternal life with Jesus Christ.

 And if you are thinking at this point ‘what me a god? I’d  make a very poor god, I make a poor sinner truth be told,’ I remind you that Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.”  (Matthew 21:31)

Indeed it is just those who suffer the most, e.g. prostitutes, the poor, confronted with life’s hardships that can connect with the universal, for in their daily struggles they are given the choice to choose alienation or to make the move into greater connection with others and their world.  The key to dealing with the anger in suffering is to find that connection to the greater “self” beyond the suffering separate isolated being.

Suffering serious loss causes one to question in anger if we are truly one in Christ yet survivors report redemption in thinking of others.  What is needed is for you to stop with the ‘little sinner me’, having known good and evil, and join the universe now, immediately, right this instant.  “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” (John 3:3) 

The “good news” is not that the resurrection and eternal life are found when you are dead but now, as soon as you are born again.  God sent an angel who asked, “Why do you seek for He who lives among the dead?” (Luke 24:5) Why? The experience of coming into unity with the universe in the “body of Christ” can only be hinted at for it is an experience not a word.

To be born again is not some phony Jimmy Swaggert tears running down your face on TV blubbering but is this moment of transcendence, of ascension, where in you join with Jesus in an eternal life that is eternal because the universe is eternal even though ‘little poor you’ may not be.

The realization that you are one with the universe, not fallen out of it, is to be “born again” or as Christian Scientists say “resurrected.”  The physicists explain that our bodies are made up of material ejected from stars, yet when told we are one with this universe we doubt.  There is an optical illusion that we are separate yet we depend on the atmosphere, biosphere, and sun; just as “Oceans wave, the Universe peoples”---Allen Watts.

This is His body this is His blood.  Whose body?  Whose blood?  Before being born again you would have had answered ‘my body my blood’ but now the answer is Corpus Christi.

May Major Biden Rest In Peace.



Letter to

Our e-mail:

Dear Manager,

(If you are not the person who is in charge of this, please forward this to your CEO,Thanks)

This email is from China domain name registration center, which mainly deal with the domain name registration and dispute internationally in China.

We received an application from Huake Ltd on December 8, 2014. They want to register " newruskincollege " as their Internet Keyword and " newruskincollege .cn "、" newruskincollege " 、" newruskincollege "、" newruskincollege " domain names etc.., they are in China domain names. But after checking it, we find " newruskincollege " conflicts with your company. In order to deal with this matter better, so we send you email and confirm whether this company is your distributor or business partner in China or not?

Best Regards,

Jim  Wang

General Manager 

Shanghai Office (Head Office)

3002, Nanhai Building, No. 854 Nandan Road,

Xuhui District, Shanghai 200070, China

Tel: +86 216191 8696

Mobile: +86 1870199 4951

Fax: +86 216191 8697

Web:                                May 17,2015

Lecture Notes


I posted that music, films, television, books, talking books, internet all were available on my Amazon Kindle Fire HDX 8.9 with Dolby Stereo for only a few hundred dollars in a 13oz package.

Then Krauthammer posted about a performance at the Kennedy Center in Washington DC with the note that tickets were not likely available.

Was Krauthammer responding to my post?

It does not matter.

The point is made whether it was intentional or coincidental.

 Dr. Charles Krauthammer M.D. is an elitist.  He is posting on Twitter a performance that was probably sold out, was in any case available only to those living near the Kennedy Center and interested in a specific kind of music and willing to pay $44 for a night’s entertainment.

But Twitter is a mass platform!  Had Dr. Krauthammer wanted to share his enjoyment that would have been one thing but his post was put forward as a notice of an upcoming show.  Get your tickets!  If you can.

My post was not an elitist post.  Anyone can afford a Fire HDX 8.9 (5 easy payment of $75 for qualified buyers) and having acquired it there are 

no limits to what can be done.

Millions of songs, books, and with Bluetooth keyboard and headphones you can literally take it anywhere and do what you like.



The difference is  my post was a populist post on a mass platform open to everyone and  Krauthammer’s was an elitist post open only to a few.

Krauthammer is not alone; the American Conservative Movement is riven with elitists. And it shows in their policies or rather in their lack of policy initiatives.     

It is a statistical fact that support for conservative positions increases with college attendance yet it was not a Conservative but the Liberal President Barack Obama who declared that two years of college shall now be the “norm” in America.


George H. W. Bush supported vouchers but only if they could be used at Phillips Academy and Philips Exeter Academy etc., as well as the inner city.  When his son W held the levers of power he somehow just couldn’t seem to get vouchers or charter schools embedded in the national educational system.

So today Baltimore City Schools get $15,000 per student or $450,000 for a class of 30.  For those who are scheming these pages perhaps we should break that number down. The teacher gets less than $100k salary, insurance, and retirement. Office space in Baltimore City is less than $2.50 a square foot and we would expect that by now the schools would have been paid for, but no matter lets allow, $75,000 rent, no nothing is too good for our kids, $100k, furnished.  So that leaves us $250,000 for books and supplies, and what else?  Security?  Administration!  The head master gets $250k per classroom per year?


I think the point is made; there is plenty of money for the classroom.  This is how charter schools can operate even when only given a fraction of what the public schools are given.   

Previously I wrote (see letter to Sen. Elizabeth Warren) that we control sufficient levers of power to force cities to change their exclusionary building and zoning codes to allow the construction of more housing and thus lower rents. Pro Bono Publico.

So here also the Federal Government controls sufficient funding to direct urban inner city schools to allow charter schools or vouchers to meet the needs of the students. Pro Bono Bublico.

It is not a good excuse to claim that the Liberals have and have had control of these schools and cities for generations, it is time Conservatives rolled up their sleeves, stopped being so damned elitist and got some work done, for the good of the people.

Very truly yours,

Plinio Designori.


New Ruskin                                  April 20, 2015

Lecture Notes


Xi Jinping, President of the               

Peoples Republic of China

The Forbidden City


No. 174 Xi Chang’an Jie

Beijing  100017  China


Zhang Deziang, Chairman of the

National Peoples Congress

The forbidden city


No. 174 Xi Chang’an Jie

Beijing 100017  China


Honorable Prime Minister of India

Shri Narendra Modi

7 race course road

New Delhi,  India


Barack Obama President of the

United States of America

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Washington, DC  20500-0001



Plinio Designori

New Ruskin


Your Excellences;


Artificial Clouds can cool the planet back to the temperature that naturally existed prior to man’s intervention in the process known as the green house effect or Global Warming.  Artificial Clouds come in two kinds:  stratospheric and orbital.  There are three types of orbital clouds those whose effects are principally local, those regional, and those global. 


Of these three (3) types the regional Artificial Clouds are the most problematic for world order due to their potential to disrupt, for example, India’s monsoons, and should be banned by international agreement.  Local Artificial Clouds could keep Los Angeles or New Delhi under a partial shadow reducing solar gain and reducing the demand for air conditioning.  They pose no threat to regional weather patterns.


Global Artificial Clouds are so diffuse that they do not have any particular affect on weather patterns but cool the planet evenly changing the climate not the weather.  As noted above these clouds can be located in the stratosphere or in orbit.  In the stratosphere they do not last as long but are less expensive to deploy, in orbit they last longer but cost more.


We can start by placing, upon international consent and agreement, Artificial Clouds in the stratosphere and collect data on the cooling effects.  This real world data when used to inform our computer models will greatly aid the development of orbital Artificial Clouds witch will be placed in  long term  orbits of perhaps three hundred (300) years.


For technical reasons the orbital Artificial Clouds will have to be set on orbits to decay frequently during their three hundred (300) year extent for there is the possibility of a sudden large volcanic event on Earth or more likely a nuclear winter syndrome in which case it will be necessary to clear the skies.

For additional information on Artificial Clouds you can visit The Gorbachev-Bush Artificial Clouds Institute @ New Ruskin where I have archived many articles with different proposals for different types of Artificial Clouds.  Both Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Bush lost power shortly after I contacted them about the use of Artificial clouds to control Global Warming.  Since then Global Warming has only gotten worse despite the best efforts of world leaders to control carbon out put.

Even if you thought it was possible that the nations of Earth could reduce carbon enough to reverse global Warming, and there is no reason a sane person should hold such an opinion, one should still support the use of Artificial Clouds as only they can reverse Global Warming in a timely manner.

Immediately as they are deployed Artificial Clouds begin scattering sunlight and cooling the planet.  The Flora can not uptake co2 optimally if the Flora is heat stressed cooling the planet increases the rate of co2 uptake.  Forest are devastated by pests normally killed off in colder winters, glaciers are lost, and so on all of this can instantaneously be reversed by the use of Artificial clouds.

I hope you will ask your scientists to advise you on the use of Artificial Clouds to reverse Global Warming. 

Yours Truly;

Plinio Designori    






New Ruskin

Lecture Notes                                                                                March 12, 2015



Governor Rick Scott

700 North Adams,

Tallahassee, Florida, 32303-6131


Dear Governor Rick Scott;

We have snow in Louisiana, so many storms we have lost count, and stupidly FOX asks, “If there is Global Warming why is there so much snow?”  There is Senator Inhofe who claims to know what God wants throwing a snow ball during an extreme weather event the jackass unaware it was predicted by the Global Warming scientists.

Counselor: Still trying to win friends and influence people ?   –Well, . .  .  .  some people are out of reach. Inhofe is a fool, beyond reason, he only deserves ridicule.

Inhofe says we are being “hysterics.” Inhofe said ‘God would not allow human’s to affect the global climate.” Who is being a hysteric?   What an idiot! Republican Chairman of the Environment Committee. He is an embarrassment to the Republican Party.  

It has been predicted that dryer regions will get dryer, wetter regions will get wetter, the weather becomes more extreme as the planet warms.  So the Western states are in a multi-year drought and the east is caught in an artic blast as the jet stream bends down to the gulf.

One reason practically minded people reject Global Warming is because "there is nothing we can do about it” but  see’s Gorbachev-Bush Artificial Clouds Institute. There is something we can do about it.

And if you say ‘But I don’t believe in Global Warming’ I’ll say who cares what you believe? I want to know what a reasonable man believes?  You may have some prejudice like Rush Limbaugh has for schools, you may not understand the sciences involved in Global Warming, or care, your opinion may be based on economic calculation.

A recent report  see   report 2-10-2015  by scientists called for more study of the technology to reflect sunlight and cool the planet.  The Republicans by simply funding computer modeling of the effect of Artificial Clouds on Global Warming on NASA’s new super computers can win over the young to our Party by showing them that we take the problem seriously and are committed to doing something about it.


There are two types of Artificial Clouds, orbital and atmospheric, the former last longer the latter are cheaper to put up and we can start to conduct live test with atmospheric clouds.  (Needless to say the computer models will become much more accurate as the data from these real world tests are streamed into the models.)

Perhaps only Conservatives can save the planet as Liberals are too effete or afraid to make the intentional global climate change required.  Liberals may think that we must suffer for our carbon emissions treating it as a moral outrage not a tech problem see Gorgachev-Bush Artificial Clouds Institutes: Dr. Gregory Benford’s Paper on Artificial Clouds:

Amazingly given the size of the problem some Lefties oppose Artificial Clouds because they say they will take the pressure off carbon reduction.  On the other hand if you reject  Global Warming because the Green’s zero carbon is too expensive you are making a mistake, for there is no expense too great to pay to save the planet. The planet is priceless.  yet Artificial Clouds are a less expensive way to cool the planet and cool it quickly.

Dr. Teller called for research into Artificial Clouds and understood the day might come when we would need deploy them see Dr. Tellers Paper on Artificial Clouds

The scientists, who are mostly Lefties, and think acceptance of Global Warming because Artificial Clouds are cheaper is an evil do not understand how the political process  works.  Thou people should not think economically about Global Warming, out of force of habit of mind, they do, it is human nature.

Conservatives understand people better than Liberals. Carbon reduction is not going to be enough to save the planet; it is not going to be fast enough; the planet is going to warm 2 possibly 4 more degrees before carbon reduction starts to have effect. We need Artificial Clouds to reverse Warming in a timely manner, while of course continuing carbon reduction efforts.  (Indeed as the world community comes together to put up the Artificial Clouds Global Warming will become the normative value accepted by all.)


To be a Conservative one must maintain discrete lines of thought, evidence for Global Warming is separate from the politics of the Greens.   Greens may say there is only one way to fight Global Warming  but we can apply technology to reduce solar radiation & perhaps only we can.

By championing the technological solution to Global Warming Conservatives (Republicans) can take the issue away from the Democrats and Greens.  Simply by supporting research into reflecting sunlight the Republican brand can be associated with saving the planet from Global Warming.

Cooling the planet will not be enough, carbon dioxide turns to carbonic acid in the oceans and changes the ocean PH killing animals with calcium carbonate shells.  The ocean problem is not a small problem, e g Plankton accounts for 50% of the biosphere, yet you can see the solution lies in our direction not Inhofe’s imbecilic theology.  The fact that we cannot solve the ocean problem with the same technology we use on the Global Warming problem shouldn't cause us to do nothing.

 Bringing down the Global temperature for a few hundred years will take the heat stress off the flora and allow it to uptake carbon optimally.  So Artificial Clouds will allow carbon to be taken in and away from the oceans more effectively. 

The coast of Atmospheric Artificial Clouds is so low that a small fleet of 747s outfitted with tanks instead of passenger decks could deploy a cloud over the Northern Hemisphere at a cost that the State of Florida could finance with a small increase in its hotel room tax. 

Others should also contribute.  For example Boeing could pay for the conversion of the used 747s mothballed in the California and Arizona desert as it is a business with a special interest in Global Warming.  Indeed the Coal industry, and Exxon, and Chevron, should be leaders in calling for research in use of Artificial Clouds to cool planet, yet they are silent.

If the State of Florida were to contact these leaders of industry with a plan to research Artificial Clouds including an experimental deployment of an atmospheric Artificial Cloud I am sure they would assist you. 

Very Truly Yours,

Plinio Designori

New Ruskin


Lecture Notes:             February 24, 2015

There is a politics of jealousy in this country, but it is not the jealousy of the lower classes of the elites, it is the jealousy of the elites for their privileged positions.       

What I did not understand about the social order is how many of you bare actual ill will for others for no apparent reason.  Who could object to the enrichment of the curriculum with laser disks especially when the disks themselves are self-financed at no cost to the tax payers?  (At the time I introduced this part of the plan explaining how the disks would be sold and the Treasury reimbursed, Senator Moynihan rose on the Senate floor and reminded those present how the Erie Canal paid off all its investors at market rate interest, no state subsidy, no Sir. ( I neglected to include “market rate interest” in my calculations setting the interest at 5%.  Senator Moynihan was always so demanding. ( see Math Project Letter April 27, 1990 @ The Moynihan Memorial Library) ))

And yet notwithstanding the modest proposal the amount of ill will it engendered was stupefying.  But if you think, ‘Oh, you are just talking about things that have to do with yourself.’  Well look at reducing medical costs.  Everyone says they want to do something about it yet nothing is done. Why does the elite hold such ill will for changes in medical administration?  Real actual ill will towards change? If I were to tell you these elites were doctors you could understand but I mean just ordinary members of Congress, elites in media, various industries not related to medical care, oppose change to medical administration costs. It would save money for millions of people but yet they oppose change, in part because they want to protect their fellow elites, doctors, executives, capitalists, but mainly they do not even know these people they just oppose change, that would lower costs, they just do not want to do it. 

Why? Take housing for example.  Perhaps more understandably there is general opposition to the construction of housing in order to lower prices.  There is positive ill will even by people who have no fear of loss of market value of their real estate.  Elites in other cities oppose the construction of housing in cities on the other end of the country. Just the thought that someone might get a deal on a place to live causes them pain. I have repeatedly argued in favor of capitalist development of housing (as opposed to city planners) only to be rebuffed by elite members with, “do I owe you a home?” The utter unreasonableness of the response should not conceal the hostility.

I could digress into the petty and catalogue the ill will engendered by the use of paste or Cubic Zirconia, or decorating one’s home with copies of paintings, wearing dresses that are copies or knock offs, etc. The point is there is no amusement at the cleverness of the imposters, not even neutrality while reflecting on the value of the market, but positive anger from the elites and ostracism of the offender.  What accounts for this ill will?  It cost the elites nothing if people amuse themselves with replicas. Why the anger?

I can only conclude that the elites are jealous of their advantages and become fearful if anyone gets anything similar especially at a lower price or with greater access or with ease of access etc. All statistics show that the income distribution has been skewed to the upper income with the lower income stagnating and actually declining in real terms in the last three decades. Yet the elites in the media and Congress and the rich in business regularly recite invective against food stamps.  Nothing is done to keep benefits up with the continuing skewing of the economy, for example, if the child tax deduction credit had kept its value that it had in Eisenhower’s time it would be over $10,000 per child.  But if that family should get $200 in food stamps men and women with incomes of over $250,000 a year go crazy with rage.

An enriched curriculum, access to medicine, to housing, all of it causes the elites real feelings of pain at loss of its distinct advantages over the lower classes.  There is a politics of jealousy in this country, but it is not the jealousy of the lower classes of the elites, it is the jealousy of the elites for their privileged positions.


 PS  And I think Iran’s nuclear program should be destroyed and the regime must be overthrown.


New Ruskin

Lecture Notes                                                                                 January 6, 2015



Senator Elizabeth Warren

317 Hart Senate Office Building

The U. S. Senate

Washington, DC  20510



Plinio Designori

New Ruskin College





Dear Doctor Professor United States Senator Elizabeth Warren;


       Twenty Five years ago I found that I agreed with Mishima Yukio: “I have believed that knowing without acting is not sufficiently knowing and the action itself does not require any effectiveness.”(A)

        At that time I tried to persuade the Senate to adopt laser disk technology for education.  But I disapprove of single issue politics.  The politician must deal with a great many issues and it seems to me that one must deal with all these issues at the same time the politician deals with them while at the same time also presenting the particular proposal one wishes to present.

        Doctor Professor ambassador Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once commented that he and his fellow sociologists were often criticized for ending up by saying “everything is connected to everything else.”  Then added,  “But, damn it, everything is connected to everything else!”


(A)   Mishima Yukio. Ivan Morris, The Nobility of Failure; Tragic Heroes in the History of Japan



And Moynihan was right, for example, if we had spent twenty five years working on using laser disks in education would California’s labor force have fallen from being characterized as “some college” to “some high school”?  Of course the primary reason for this decline is the large influx of Mexican immigrants with poor educations.  But why poor educations?  Everything is connected to everything else. 

            Did I not say, twenty five years ago that the laser disks could have dozens of language tracks? Did I not specifically mention Spanish? Arabic?  Did I not tell President Bush (41) that his fame would spread around the world as the disks were shipped to those in need of an education? The women of Saudi Arabia could have afforded the laser disks.  The top third of the people of India could have afforded the disks. That is 400 million people. Mexico, the richest third world nation, could have afforded the disks. Our own high school seniors could have had their freshman year of college on laser disk and completed while at home thus reducing the cost of college by 25%.

How long does it take to educate the world?  Well think about it!  All of human knowledge is passed on to the next generation every year.  It takes one year.  Everything else is simply repetition.


                        “every good school master knows:  repetition, repetition, repetition.” - - - - Daniel Patrick Moynihan


            And we had twenty five years to educate the children of Mexico before they came to California.  Everything is connected to everything else.  And I am disinterested.  Some say to me ‘look you failed.’  Thinking I needed to succeed.  I completed my action.  There was no failure.  True the disks were not produced, the people were not educated, society is worse off than it otherwise would have been, but it has in history ever been thus.  We are governed by fools! (Present company excluded, of course.)  And it makes no difference to me.  I take my audience as I find them fools or not.

{Now I am concerned with global warming and the use of artificial clouds to counter its effects and prevent methane from being released from the artic.  We need to stop global warming before the methane is released as the methane is ten times more powerful than co2.   But that is a different story.[1]}

            I am writing to you to ask you to be more than a Massachusetts Senator;  do you not want to be a United States Senator?  How many times have I heard your colleagues refer to their “constituents”? Senators from Mississippi (population: 2,984,000   vs.  San Diego County Population: 3,211,000 ) believe they represent only the people of Mississippi and not the people of San Diego County even though the latter is more numerous and has no representation.  Or Senators from Ohio (Population: 10 million

[1] C02 is healthy for the vegetation if not for the effect or retention of heat in the atmosphere.  Cooling the planet with higher than normal levels of co2 would allow plant life to surge taking in more co2.  Ocean ph levels would have to be dealt with separately.


vs.  Los Angeles County Population also 10 million) who think they can be just Ohio Senators  representing just 10 million Ohioans and what?  To hell with the people of Los Angeles County?  And what about the other 315 million Americans?  How long do your colleagues think they can go on like this?

            This regime must fall.  Can Delaware (population 750 thousand) have two senators and San Francisco county, (population also 750 thousand), have no representation in the senate?  Is this fair, is this just, can this last? This is the great constitutional question of the twenty first century[1].

            Now one idea I have thought of as a simple fix that can be implemented today, is for Senators to fore swear being state Senators and to become United States Senators.  They should run for office from their constituencies, and they should continue to provide services to those constituencies, but they should shift their focus, broaden their perspective, expand their vision to the national stage. 

            Because some Senators are recalcitrant we may have to actually divide up the nation and assign additional districts to Senators.  The Senators from Wyoming (population 576,000),  for example, may be given the constituency of Wyoming, yes, and part of Chicago (population 2,718,000 ) so they can learn about the needs of urban America. The Senators from Utah will have Utah (population 2,855,000), yes, and part of south Los Angeles (population 3 million) also.

            I don’t suppose the people of South Los Angeles will much appreciate the Senators from Utah or that the people of Chicago the Senators of Wyoming no matter how sincere their resolve to be United States Senators.  But this is just the point.  No matter the good intentions of the Senators there has to be a reapportionment of the Senate, “one man one vote.”

            You of course recognize the line of argument for the supreme court’s ruling[2] that required the reapportionment of the House which William f. Buckley Jr. said at the time, if truly applied as dictum, would mean the doom of the Senate.  For if the House was skewed  in its representation, representing more heads of cattle than citizens, more acres of crops than city blocks where the people actually live, how much more so is this true of the Senate!?


            “My husband thought that one man could make a difference and that everyone should try.” -- -- -- Jacqueline Kennedy


[1] So said Senator Moynihan.  Remember this for you will need to know this to enter New Ruskin College.

[2] In various reapportionment cases decided by the US Supreme Court in the 1960s, notably Wesberry v. Sanders, Reynolds v. Sims, and Baker v. Carr, the court ruled that districts for the United States House of Representatives, and for the legislative districts of both houses of state legislatures, had to contain roughly equal populations, and required redistricting to meet this standard. The U.S. Senate was not affected by these rulings, as its makeup was explicitly established in the U.S. Constitution. From Wikipedia


I would change this if I could but I think the malapportionment of the Senate will make it further into the twenty first century than I will.  But as everything is connected to everything else perhaps this malapportionment alone accounts for the disuse of laser disk technology by the Senate?  It represents more heads of hogs than school children!  Perhaps this malapportionment also explains the 114ths antagonism for Obama Care?  What are 10 million formerly uninsured to such a Senate for whom most of its members will conclude that they must be in someone else’s “constituency” as most States do not even have 10 million citizens!  (Only 10 states come close.  Eighty Senators are from states with fewer total citizens than the gross total of uninsured who are now insured under the Affordable Care Act.)

            Congressman Paul Ryan, to take another example,  has it in his mind to drop $137 billion from food stamps as he says to “encourage” the “able bodied” to work.  Surely this is backwards for it is already in the law that as the recipients earn over the specified level they lose their food stamps.  And that “specified level” is I can assure you at a rock bottom low level.  I do not qualify for food stamps as low as my income is. Mr. Ryan wrestles with the fear that the “able bodied” are staying with food stamps and the pitifully low income levels that are specified for them rather than taking on gainful employment at higher incomes.  No seriously, he is preoccupied with this fear. 

            As a fellow conservative I also recognize the unused labor resource and the need to put it to work, but rather than starving it, I would first liberate it from needless state regulation which block it from employment. (The idiotic requirements for licenses and tests etc. for being, for example, florists, dog groomers, hair braiders, etc. (That Mr. Ryan starts his campaign to employee marginal labor by starving it instead of liberating it from the barriers to its entry into the labor market, says more about him than I think he cares to admit.)) 

Then too, having been poor, I can say one large reason for being “marginal labor” is the difficulty of getting access to the jobs sites.  This is because, (and here Dr. Moynihan would want me to point out that this is a worldwide problem including China where an elaborate system of internal passports is administered to control it), cities do not want to be overrun by the “homeless” or the poor or  “marginal labor” seeking cheap housing close to the jobs in the cities. 

            So in the United States exclusionary zoning and building codes have been established to keep people out!  (This system of exclusionary zoning and building codes is no less elaborate than the Chinese system of internal controls to keep its “peasants” from over running its cities.) And unlike the rest of the third world Americans cannot build slum cities around the cities the way they do in the rest of South America, Africa, and Asia (except for China as already noted).  Everything is connected to everything else.  You set the minimum size of an apartment at 1,200 square feet and “marginal Labor” is priced out of the market.  Mr. Ryan can  

starve them all he wants and it will not change the fact that they are stuck in some West Virginia hollow when what they need to do is relocate to, to, . . . some other place.  Why doesn’t Mr. Ryan start by making labor more mobile?  Opening up the housing market?  Prohibit Federal funds from going to States or cities that do not allow free enterprise in building low cost buildings of a size and a type that capital requires?  Why doesn’t Mr. Ryan do some of the heavy lifting required to get the “able bodied” “marginal labor” back to work?   

            I have other ideas.  In Santa Barbara, another place with exclusionary zoning and building codes, (while we wait for Mr. Ryan’s efforts to liberate labor and to free developers to build smaller units that low wage workers can afford),  bus drivers, cab drivers, gardeners, cooks and bus boys, all of whom are sleeping in their cars at night can park in parking lots.  This is actually already a program in the City of Santa Barbara.  Church parking lots have porta potties and safety lighting and the “marginal labor” can drive in at night.  Showers are set up at other facilities. 

            If Mr. Ryan really feels so strongly that he is willing to drop $137 billion from the neediest Americans, can he not spare at least some time asking the rich and powerful in the cities of America to make room for the “marginal Labor” he is so worried about?  Indeed why not start his program by first making room for the workers?  Literally making room for them to sleep, and figuratively make room for them to groom dogs, and set up sales carts, and braid hair or whatever is needed to make employment legally possible?  You mustn’t judge all conservatives by Mr. Ryan’s rash stance. Did I say rash? I meant harsh, inhumane, God forsaken stance.  Have I made myself clear?  I do not mean to, as the saying goes, beat a dead horse.

             But why always start by attacking, starving, marginal labor;  why not start by freeing, liberating, labor?

            What is wrong with Mr. Ryan?


            “I wrote to Citi Bank and my letter was not even acknowledged.”

                                                                                    --- --- --- Elizabeth Warren


            Don’t you just hate when that happens?  I know what that’s like.  I recently wrote to the representatives of the coal mining industry about how the use of artificial clouds could control global temperature and they did not even acknowledge my letter.  This first happened to me in the 1980s.  I sent my resume to a job posting and did not receive an acknowledgment letter.  I understood at once that the power structure of labor and management in America had shifted completely and irreversibly.  Not just the doubling of the labor market by admitting women into it completely in the 1960s and 1970s, not just the introduction of labor saving devices like computers in the ‘80s, but the introduction of billions of workers from around the world in China and India etc., which freed up labor here at home and would, because everything is connected to everything else, allow management to ignore the piles of resumes it received and not acknowledge them as it once used to.  Power shifted from labor to management.     

            Of course once Banks like Citi bank would have not dared offend a Senator, not just because of that one Senator, but because they would know that all the other Senators would also have been offended by their crude and rude acts to their fellow Senator.  Now Senators are careless of one another and themselves.  Their power declines.  They decline in importance, and become more irrelevant.

            But I have taken more of your time than I intended.  I always considered your writings essential nonpartisan. I likened them to x-rays:  “Not reading Elizabeth Warren, is the public policy equivalent of not looking at the x-rays,” I had said, back before you had added the triple distinction of U.S. Senator to your double distinctions of Doctor and Professor.

            I don’t think you are like me.  I think your actions actually have to be successful for you to be satisfied with them.  I can tell you this, there is no better way to learn how to run for the Presidency of the United States of America than to actually run for it.  I am sure you will make all kinds of mistakes and footfalls but that is how one learns.  Mrs. Billy Clinton is not invincible.  And if you don’t have any cats for her husband, that pig of a man, to have killed, then you have nothing to worry about.  He must not be allowed to get back into the White House.  Remember Marc Rich.  

President Kennedy said,  “everyone should try,” and besides Castilano needs you to run.  (You may want to consider a general as a vice presidential candidate. (Some have PhDs.))





PS  I, of course, will support Mr. Bush but you will be a worthy opponent.


PS  And I think Iran’s nuclear program should be destroyed and the regime must be overthrown.




New Ruskin                      Distribution List

 President Obama

The White House  Washington, D. C.20006

Vice President Biden

 The White House  Washington, D. C.  20006

 The U. S. Senate*

 Washington, D. C.  20510

 The U. S. House of Representatives*

 Washington, D. C.  20515

 Environment Committee

 Space and Technology

 The Supreme Court

 1 First Street, N. E.  Washington, D. C.  20543


 National Mining Association

101 Constitution Ave. NW Suite 500 East  Washington, D. C. 20001


 World Coal Association

 5th Floor, Heddon House  149-151 Regent Street  London, W1B4JD

 United Kingdom   44 (0) 20 7851 0052


The National Coal Council 1730 M Street, NW  Suite 907   Washington, DC 20036


 American Coal Council

 1101 Pennsylvania Ave. NW  Ste. 600  Washington, DC 2000


*See Distribution List

U. S. Senate

Senator Lamar Alexander

 Senator John Barrasso

Senator Richard Blumenthal

Senator Roy Blunt

Senator John Boozman

Senator Barbara Boxer

Senator Sherrod Brown

Senator Maria Cantwell

Senator Tom Carper

Senator Robert Casey

Senator Daniel Coats

Senator Tom Coburn

Senator Thad Cochran

Senator Susan Collins

Senator John Cornyn

Senator Tom Cotton

Senator Mike Crapo

Senator Joe Donnelly

Senator Richard Durbin

Senator Dianne Feinstein

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

Senator Lindsey Graham

Senator Orrin Hatch

Senator James Inhofe

Senator Angus King

Senator Patrick Leahy

Senator Joe Manchin

Senator John McCain

Senator Mitch McConnell

Senator Bob Menendez

Senator Barbara Mikulski

Senator Patty Murray

Senator Bill Nelson

Senator Rand Paul

Senator Rob Portman

Senator Harry Reid

Senator Marco Rubio

Senator Charles Schumer

Senator Jeff Sessions

Senator Richard Shelby

Senator Debbie Stabenow

Senator Jon Tester

Senator John Thune

Senator Patrick Toomey

Senator David Vitter

Senator John Walsh

Senator Elizabeth Warren

Senator Roger Wicker

 House of Representatives: 

Speaker: John Boehner (presumptive)

Majority Leader:

Kevin McCarthy


Majority Whip:

Steve Scalise


Majority Chief Deputy Whip: Patrick McHenry

Conference Chair:

Cathy McMorris Rodgers


Conference Vice-Chair:

Lynn Jenkins


Conference Secretary: Virginia Foxx

Campaign Committee Chairman: Greg Walden

Policy Committee Chairman: Luke Messer

Senior Deputy Whip:

Ann Wagner


Nancy Pelosi


Steny Hoyer


Science, Space, and Technology 


Chairman Lamar Smith (Texas)


F. James Sensenbrenner (Wis.)


Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.)


Frank Lucas (Okla.)


Randy Neugebauer (Texas)


Michael McCaul (Texas)


Steven Palazzo (Miss.)


Mo Brooks (Ala.)


Randy Hultgren (Ill.)


Bill Posey (Fla.)


Thomas Massie (Ky.)


Jim Bridenstine (Okla.)


Randy Weber (Texas)


Bill Johnson (Ohio)


John Moolenaar (Mich.)


Steve Knight (Calif.)


Brian Babin (Texas)


Bruce Westerman (Ark.)


Barbara Comstock (Va.)


Dan Newhouse (Wash.)


Gary Palmer (Ala.)


Barry Loudermilk (Ga.)