If you noticed, this blog doesn't follow polls. To the contrary, I've said to ignore the polls.
Inevitably, though, something may be appropriately said about the prospects going forward into election day.
It seems that most polls that I've seen assume an electorate that will look like 2008. That's why the polls tended to favor Obama, or to make the race seem pretty close. If the polls are showing a close race with those assumptions, then the Democrats are going to be very disappointed on election day. In my opinion, I think the electorate is going to look more like 2004 than 2008. That election was fairly close, but Bush won decisively over John Kerry. This election could be a re-run of that one.
Actually, I'd rather see a Reagan-Carter type outcome, which was over before half of the polls in the nation had even closed. Carter conceded too early and that cost the Democrats dearly. Just more evidence as to why Carter wasn't up to the job.
Looking at it that way, it may be helpful to keep spirits up even if you know you are going to lose. Somebody could be spinning the polls in order to keep it as close as possible. A rout could be disastrous for the loser. Any size loss by Romney would be a disaster for the Republicans. But a big loss for the Democrats will undo a lot of their most recent efforts.
Let's hope for a Reagan-Carter redux. Let's think BIG.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Plasma Jet Electric Thrusters for Spacecraft
story at Next Big Future
Supercool! I didn't know about this, or I would have kicked in a few bucks. Oh, well. It is funded anyway, so it will happen without me. Good luck, dudes.
Supercool! I didn't know about this, or I would have kicked in a few bucks. Oh, well. It is funded anyway, so it will happen without me. Good luck, dudes.
What the hay?
This truck, which was hauling hay, gave me an idea for a post. It made me wonder if raising hay for biochar and methanol would be worth it.
The process would be as follows: after collecting the hay, pyrolyze it into syngas and biochar. Using the syngas, synthesize methanol. Ship the methanol to the final end purchasing site where it is reformed into hydrogen for fuel cells.
The biochar would be used for improving soils and could also serve as a carbon sink. Since the entire process doesn't use fossil fuels, it is actually carbon negative. Some of the carbon goes into the soil, the rest is recycled back into the atmosphere where it can be harvested again some day.
You would obtain the necessary platinum from mining asteroids. If the price of platinum can be brought down low enough, the final end result could be a cleaner source of energy at a reduced cost. How could you lose?
 |
| How much fuel could you get out of this much hay? |
Update:
Only three posts in this series, but I wrote extensively on the subject of using seaweed in the Dead Zone of Gulf of Mexico to clean it up and make biofuel out of it.
Part 2
Part 3
Many of the posts for this could be found in the category labels that are at the end of this post or others in the first two parts may give leads to finding more reading.
IRS Tax Form for Obamacare Individual Mandate
Americans for Tax Reform via Behind the Black
A glimpse into the not too distant future if Obama and the Democrats survive this election:
Wolf Final
A glimpse into the not too distant future if Obama and the Democrats survive this election:
Wolf Final
Modern day decline of the West
There has been much written about the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. Not everyone agrees on what and when this actually was, but it certainly happened. The "fall" as it were, occurred in 476 AD with the deposition of the last Roman Emperor Augustulus.
Pat Buchanan touched upon the subject of decline with respect to the end of the British Empire. His theory was that the loss of their empire was directly related to their involvement in the Second World War. If only they had stayed out, the British Empire would exist today.
Buchanan believes that America made a mistake in going into Iraq. It would parallel what happened to the English. The parallels can be found as such, but is that the real reason we are in trouble today? Can such a small inconsequential war be so damaging as all that?
It could if it were political damage only. Military and economically, it was inconsequential.
The Iraq war didn't do America in. It was the oil. In my opinion, America's troubles began when it stopped producing its own energy. Once it started importing oil from the Middle East, it also started importing trouble with terrorism. America is funding its civilizational enemies while at the same time, weakening itself. All of this long preceded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It all seemed to happen in a short time. By 1970, molten-salt nuclear reactor technology was a practical option. Also, by 1970, the US had begun to withdraw from Vietnam. By 1970, Richard Nixon was president. Nixon would be forced from office by 1974, as the retrograde, anti-progress, anti-nuke, left-wing was on the rise.
By 1979, radical Islam had taken over in Iran, abetted by the weakness of a feckless left-wing US president--- Jimmy Carter. Malaise had overtaken America. An energy crisis combined with a hostage crisis had undone Carter and brought Reagan to the Presidency. But no solution to the energy crisis was at hand even though a solution was under both leaders very noses---molten-salt nuclear energy developed by 1970.
If molten salt reactors had been produced, Three Mile Island wouldn't have mattered. As a matter of fact, it vindicated Weinberg's concerns about solid-fueled water-cooled reactor technology. But, instead of reaching that conclusion, nuclear energy itself was called into question. That unfortunate development was just another link in the chain of civilizational decay that continues to this very day.
In 2001, America's homeland was attacked from the West's ancient enemies in the Middle East. They were aided and abetted by oil money from imports of Middle Eastern Oil.
Now, in 2012, President Obama is walking in Jimmy Carter's footsteps. As Carter did, he is trying to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar energy. As Carter did, he is showing weakness towards the Middle East. As Jimmy Carter did, he is trying to appease an enemy that cannot be appeased. It would seem that a new Reagan should arise. Is Romney that man?
Reagan's emphasis was on the Soviet Union. If Romney's is on Russia, he will be making a very big mistake. Russia is not the problem. America's failure to embrace nuclear energy in the form of molten-salt nuclear reactor technology could lead it to continue with policies that cannot maintain a political consensus long enough to weather the challenge from the Middle East. Fusion technology may not arrive soon enough. Wind and Solar cannot bridge the gap. Oil production cannot compete economically with cheap oil from the Persian Gulf. Only nuclear energy has the potential to do this. But this option is continually shunned.
Romney is promising to heal the economy. Let's hope that if elected, he can come through. America can then regain its strength and truly move forward. I believe that he had better not ignore molten-salt technology, nor any other technology that may solve the energy problem. Molten-salt techology is proven. The others are potential. The path is clear, but will he take it? Obama won't.
Pat Buchanan touched upon the subject of decline with respect to the end of the British Empire. His theory was that the loss of their empire was directly related to their involvement in the Second World War. If only they had stayed out, the British Empire would exist today.
Buchanan believes that America made a mistake in going into Iraq. It would parallel what happened to the English. The parallels can be found as such, but is that the real reason we are in trouble today? Can such a small inconsequential war be so damaging as all that?
It could if it were political damage only. Military and economically, it was inconsequential.
The Iraq war didn't do America in. It was the oil. In my opinion, America's troubles began when it stopped producing its own energy. Once it started importing oil from the Middle East, it also started importing trouble with terrorism. America is funding its civilizational enemies while at the same time, weakening itself. All of this long preceded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It all seemed to happen in a short time. By 1970, molten-salt nuclear reactor technology was a practical option. Also, by 1970, the US had begun to withdraw from Vietnam. By 1970, Richard Nixon was president. Nixon would be forced from office by 1974, as the retrograde, anti-progress, anti-nuke, left-wing was on the rise.
By 1979, radical Islam had taken over in Iran, abetted by the weakness of a feckless left-wing US president--- Jimmy Carter. Malaise had overtaken America. An energy crisis combined with a hostage crisis had undone Carter and brought Reagan to the Presidency. But no solution to the energy crisis was at hand even though a solution was under both leaders very noses---molten-salt nuclear energy developed by 1970.
If molten salt reactors had been produced, Three Mile Island wouldn't have mattered. As a matter of fact, it vindicated Weinberg's concerns about solid-fueled water-cooled reactor technology. But, instead of reaching that conclusion, nuclear energy itself was called into question. That unfortunate development was just another link in the chain of civilizational decay that continues to this very day.
In 2001, America's homeland was attacked from the West's ancient enemies in the Middle East. They were aided and abetted by oil money from imports of Middle Eastern Oil.
Now, in 2012, President Obama is walking in Jimmy Carter's footsteps. As Carter did, he is trying to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar energy. As Carter did, he is showing weakness towards the Middle East. As Jimmy Carter did, he is trying to appease an enemy that cannot be appeased. It would seem that a new Reagan should arise. Is Romney that man?
Reagan's emphasis was on the Soviet Union. If Romney's is on Russia, he will be making a very big mistake. Russia is not the problem. America's failure to embrace nuclear energy in the form of molten-salt nuclear reactor technology could lead it to continue with policies that cannot maintain a political consensus long enough to weather the challenge from the Middle East. Fusion technology may not arrive soon enough. Wind and Solar cannot bridge the gap. Oil production cannot compete economically with cheap oil from the Persian Gulf. Only nuclear energy has the potential to do this. But this option is continually shunned.
Romney is promising to heal the economy. Let's hope that if elected, he can come through. America can then regain its strength and truly move forward. I believe that he had better not ignore molten-salt technology, nor any other technology that may solve the energy problem. Molten-salt techology is proven. The others are potential. The path is clear, but will he take it? Obama won't.
Bill Maher
Supposedly, this guy's a comedian. He makes a "joke" here and the audience laughs. But really, is this funny?
He is relying on black stereotypes for his basis for humor here. "Everybody" knows that blacks are violent. So "everybody" laughs at the "joke". I'm not black, but I'd think I'd take offense at being stereotyped that way. If you are black, what say you?
Europe is a dead man walking
The blindness of this interviewer is shocking. Or is shocking to someone who is actually awake. Europe is a dead man walking. This guy sees it as it is. His interviewer does not. Very sad to watch.
"There comes a time when you've made enough money..."
These may not be Obama's exact words, but he did say something quite similar to that. It believe it is an important tell about his character. Something that you may want to keep in mind when you go to the polls on Tuesday.
What does that quote say about Obama? I think it says that he doesn't favor economic growth. He may give the impression that he favors growth, but in his deepest heart, he may be thinking that this country has made enough money, and needs to slow down.
Obama did say to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread the wealth around. Interestingly, he doesn't seem to be all that gung-ho about creating it. Do you create more wealth if you force coal mines out of business? Do you create more wealth when you shut down the Keystone Pipeline and import the oil from the Middle East?
Obama is out of step. Most Americans still believe that economic growth is important.
When Charlie Gibson asked about capital gains taxes, Obama said he would be against lower rates even if the lower rates raised more taxes. Again, this is an important tell. For what it says is that Obama would make the trade-off between equality v. growth in favor of equality. Growth would be sacrificed at the altar of equality. Isn't that what happened in these last four years?
Those on the left may cry foul here. Obama really wants growth too. But where are the results? Even under Bush, who Obama wants to run against perpetually, the economy produced more jobs. That's an inconvenient truth that liberals don't want to face. They run against prosperity because they want more equality. Equality über alles. But they say that they want more prosperity. So, what do you believe? Them, or you're lying eyes?
What does that quote say about Obama? I think it says that he doesn't favor economic growth. He may give the impression that he favors growth, but in his deepest heart, he may be thinking that this country has made enough money, and needs to slow down.
Obama did say to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread the wealth around. Interestingly, he doesn't seem to be all that gung-ho about creating it. Do you create more wealth if you force coal mines out of business? Do you create more wealth when you shut down the Keystone Pipeline and import the oil from the Middle East?
Obama is out of step. Most Americans still believe that economic growth is important.
When Charlie Gibson asked about capital gains taxes, Obama said he would be against lower rates even if the lower rates raised more taxes. Again, this is an important tell. For what it says is that Obama would make the trade-off between equality v. growth in favor of equality. Growth would be sacrificed at the altar of equality. Isn't that what happened in these last four years?
Those on the left may cry foul here. Obama really wants growth too. But where are the results? Even under Bush, who Obama wants to run against perpetually, the economy produced more jobs. That's an inconvenient truth that liberals don't want to face. They run against prosperity because they want more equality. Equality über alles. But they say that they want more prosperity. So, what do you believe? Them, or you're lying eyes?
Employment Situation 2012 vs 2008
 |
| December 2008 Household Data shows 143,338,000 Employed |
 |
| November 2012 Household Data shows 143,384,000 Employed |
Where's the jobs? After 4 years, there has been virtually net zero jobs. Where's the jobs we were promised?
But Joe Gandleman of The Moderate Voice finds fault with Giuliani, who said something against this jobs report---amongst other things. So, what's so good about this jobs report and what's so bad about what Giuliani said?
What's so good about Obama's record? Is it "partisan" to criticize the president? That doesn't seem moderate to me. Who's being partisan here?
Update:
With respect to this "moderate" business: If memory serves, Chris Matthews claimed that he might have voted for John McCain in 2000. McCain didn't win the nomination in 2000, so that claim couldn't be tested.
The point is, could Matthews have possibly been sincere about voting for McCain? Especially in light of his tingly leg for Obama. The thing I'm getting at here is that you can't take this claim for moderation seriously when it is coming from Democrats. They will say anything.
I would bet that Joe Gandleman is a Democrat who is claiming to be a moderate like Chris Matthews was doing in 2000. The claim is meant to deceive. He ain't no moderate.
Broken Promises---In Obama's Own Words, He Should Go.
Was Hillary right about Obama?
If you are undecided still, you must watch this video. If this doesn't move you, you may as well stay home.
If you are undecided still, you must watch this video. If this doesn't move you, you may as well stay home.
Election nears and discussion heats up
Free Republic
Excerpts:
It may be a mistake to argue with someone who has a strong opinion one way or another. It is very likely to lead nowhere. Yet, minds can be changed. I know that mine has over the years. I used to be for gun control and choice. Not anymore. I used to believe in global warming. Not anymore.
One thing that you can say to these people when they claim to think for themselves is what this guy asked in this article--- where do you get your news? The answer, if it were honest, would probably be that the man listens to left-wing slanted news.
The man said he worked for the labor department. An important tell.
You can't argue on the basis of logic, reason, and evidence with someone who gets his money from the source that tells him what he should think.
This is what I was getting at in an earlier post. It goes deeper to something more fundamental about human nature. Much has been made of Romney's 47% comment. This is the example of it right here. No matter what the facts are, this man is going to vote for the people who signs his paychecks.
What is the answer? I think the answer to this problem is to get to first principles. Which are:
Excerpts:
- I was at a ballroom dance event in Harrisburg tonight and went to dinner at the restaurant there. As luck would have it sitting across from me was a family Mom, Dad, and two young adults...perhaps their kids. I overhear the conversation.
- I am listening to this and couldn’t keep my mouth shut.
- My responses as calmly as i could was to ask about Benghazi ...no reply.
- I asked him where he works....he works for the labor department...gee fancy that.
- Anyhow the conversation died down. They stopped paying attention to me.
It may be a mistake to argue with someone who has a strong opinion one way or another. It is very likely to lead nowhere. Yet, minds can be changed. I know that mine has over the years. I used to be for gun control and choice. Not anymore. I used to believe in global warming. Not anymore.
One thing that you can say to these people when they claim to think for themselves is what this guy asked in this article--- where do you get your news? The answer, if it were honest, would probably be that the man listens to left-wing slanted news.
The man said he worked for the labor department. An important tell.
You can't argue on the basis of logic, reason, and evidence with someone who gets his money from the source that tells him what he should think.
This is what I was getting at in an earlier post. It goes deeper to something more fundamental about human nature. Much has been made of Romney's 47% comment. This is the example of it right here. No matter what the facts are, this man is going to vote for the people who signs his paychecks.
What is the answer? I think the answer to this problem is to get to first principles. Which are:
- Accountability--- if you approve of Obama's record, vote for him. If you don't, vote him out. Obama promised more jobs than what he has delivered. Do you approve of this? He can't blame this failure all on Republicans. He had a large majority in Congress for his first two years. Republicans couldn't stop him. That's why ObamaCare was passed. ObamaCare was more important than jobs. Why?
- Bill of Rights--- Obama attacked the First Amendment after Benghazi. Now, he has changed his story. There's a man in prison, who made the video that Obama claimed caused the Benghazi attack. Would this man be in prison if he had made a pro-Islamic video? Or an anti-Christian video? No, he is in prison because he made an anti-Islam movie. Do we have the right to free speech or not?
- History--- Obama has made much about his ending of the two wars he inherited. But don't forget how these two wars started. Is Obama saying that we were to blame for these two wars? Is it the same as with the Benghazi attacks? Is Benghazi the same as when far leftists were blaming us for being attacked on 9/11/2001? There were some far leftists who said that the victims of 9/11 were like Eichmann of the Third Reich. Do supporters of Obama believe this? Or what do they believe? Because it appears that the left who supports Obama really does believe we deserved the attack in Benghazi as well as on 9/11/2001.
Friday, November 2, 2012
You're George McFly!
I think the Gipper liked this movie. Reagan once quoted the movie when he said, "where we're going, we won't need roads."
Thoughts on the passing scene
- What should Romney say about Benghazi? There are those who say that he should say nothing. I disagree. He should say something. Even if it is the most general thing imaginable, he should say it. Saying nothing is not exactly my idea of expressing opposition. If you are going to oppose, then oppose. If you aren't going to oppose, then what good are you? If now is not the time, then when? If not us, then who?
- There some out there who note that liberals don't understand the non-liberal mind. It doesn't surprise me. In my opinion, liberals don't understand much of anything. But they do understand one thing--- how to be a bully. The only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him. You don't give in to bullies. That's all liberals are --- bullies. They know they don't need to understand anything, so they don't. If you don't stand up to them, they won't ever learn that they'd better understand the non-liberal mind. All too often, it seems, the conservatives are letting themselves be intimidated by the left. When is all this going to change? Maybe never, because the conservatives just won't ever learn. They'll just wring their hands and complain about being misunderstood.
- Reagan was able to express his opposition in a way that the left couldn't handle. Since he left office, things have been going downhill. This leads me to believe that not one conservative actually understands why Reagan was so effective. That includes Rush Limbaugh, amongst many others. Limbaugh talks all he wants about how he loves Reagan, but does he really understand what the hell he is talking about? Reagan succeeded against the same liberal media and a gang of liberals on Capitol Hill, yet he did so without any of these guys. These guys came later, but they haven't helped at all. Instead things have gotten worse. Disastrously worse. Despite all of their presumed love for Reagan, how can they explain this? How do you explain Obama, for goodness sake?
- Dick Morris said Romney was the next Reagan. No. Romney is the next Bill Clinton, if he wins. Clinton was very good at lying. Reagan didn't have to lie. There's truth there for anyone willing to take notes and pay attention. Personally, I don't think anyone is taking notes. Otherwise, Obama isn't in the White House and we are in a world of excrement.
Could Hurricane Sandy delay the election?
Could Hurricane Sandy delay the election?: In case of emergencies that threaten to disrupt voting, the federal Election Assistance Commission advises state election officials to "review existing State law."
Comment:
In your dreams, a-hole. The election goes on unless somebody wants an excuse to stop it. This could be the excuse, all right, but it is only an excuse.
Comment:
In your dreams, a-hole. The election goes on unless somebody wants an excuse to stop it. This could be the excuse, all right, but it is only an excuse.
New Jersey Is Running Out Of Gasoline And Police Are On Hand
Business Insider
Lots of pics of long lines for gasoline. It was something like that here in Houston after Hurricane Ike blew through. The aftermath of that storm is a bad memory.
There's this strong tendency to frown upon "price gouging". If there's a need for something, "price gouging" needs to be allowed. For if the price was high enough, gasoline would be getting there. Trust me on that one. But in the effort to be "fair", "price gouging" is not allowed. Thus, the people do not have gas.
People in New Jersey will vote for Obama. When will they ever learn?
Lots of pics of long lines for gasoline. It was something like that here in Houston after Hurricane Ike blew through. The aftermath of that storm is a bad memory.
There's this strong tendency to frown upon "price gouging". If there's a need for something, "price gouging" needs to be allowed. For if the price was high enough, gasoline would be getting there. Trust me on that one. But in the effort to be "fair", "price gouging" is not allowed. Thus, the people do not have gas.
People in New Jersey will vote for Obama. When will they ever learn?
Better late than never
You take good news when you can get it. Even if it is a bit late.
We've now got Pat Buchanan's seal of approval. Yay.
The guys with the big names like Pat Buchanan are now saying what those of us in the trenches have been saying all along. Now he is in there with us. Yeah, he's welcome. But a little late.
This same Pat Buchanan was comparing Obama to Ronald Reagan. The same Pat Buchanan all but elected this creep. Thanks a lot.
We've now got Pat Buchanan's seal of approval. Yay.
On June 11, the British ambassador's motorcade was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, wounding a medic and doctor. The next day, the ambassador was gone and the British Benghazi post was closed....On Aug. 16, a cable went to the State Department describing the imminent danger, saying the compound could not defend itself against a "coordinated attack."...Catherine Herridge of Fox News, who unearthed the Aug. 16 cable, calls it the "smoking gun."
Yet, on Oct. 11, Joe Biden, during the vice presidential debate, asserted, "We weren't told they wanted more security there."
The guys with the big names like Pat Buchanan are now saying what those of us in the trenches have been saying all along. Now he is in there with us. Yeah, he's welcome. But a little late.
This same Pat Buchanan was comparing Obama to Ronald Reagan. The same Pat Buchanan all but elected this creep. Thanks a lot.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Why a Typical Honest Russian Immigrant Hates Obama
Alla Axelrod, American Thinker
The article points out that a lot of Obama's support is unthinking. If only these people would think.
One thing they could think about is why support Obama on the basis of what he inherited from Bush? He hasn't even improved upon Bush's performance. Not more jobs created. As far as the wars, Bush inherited the world situation from Clinton. Yes, two can play the blame game. As long as we are blaming predecessors, we can blame Clinton for not getting bin Laden when he had the chance. At least some of the responsibility for 9-11 was Clinton.
So Obama's record is no reason to support him. Only unthinking support for this guy.
Alla Axelrod came to the U.S. with her family in 1979. She made a niche for herself as a musical entertainer/comedienne, achieving a fair degree of success and fame in that field.quote:
So now Obama wants to feed more drug addicts and illegal immigrants on honest workers' pay. Plus this disgusting idea of "redistribution of wealth" I already wrote about, which is pure socialism, the idea even the Russians discarded as a bankrupt system. Hello...hasn't he heard it doesn't work, or don't they teach history at Harvard and Columbia? Or did he miss those classes?
The article points out that a lot of Obama's support is unthinking. If only these people would think.
One thing they could think about is why support Obama on the basis of what he inherited from Bush? He hasn't even improved upon Bush's performance. Not more jobs created. As far as the wars, Bush inherited the world situation from Clinton. Yes, two can play the blame game. As long as we are blaming predecessors, we can blame Clinton for not getting bin Laden when he had the chance. At least some of the responsibility for 9-11 was Clinton.
So Obama's record is no reason to support him. Only unthinking support for this guy.
The Electoral College: How Both Sides Miss the Point
via Meadia
Let's go back to first principles.
Everyone? Hmmm.
By the way, Hurricane Sandy's aftermath may give the best reason for not messing with the current system.
Here's why: There's rumors out there that the election may be suspended because people can't vote in some areas.
Well, that doesn't matter because the people don't decide who becomes President. What???? That's right, the people do not decide the outcome of a Presidential contest. The state legislatures do. That's the law. That's the Constitution.
Therefore, you do not suspend an election because some people can't vote. The state legislatures of the affected states will have to step in and pick the electors. That's the law. No need to change anything.
Now, if there's any attempt to change that right before the election, it doesn't pass the smell test. The law has to be the same before the election as after. No changes made after the fact can be legal. To make this attempt invites controversy. Only if someone wants controversy will you see this kind of thing.
Let's go back to first principles.
Both sides miss the point completely, as they both ignore what the Founders had in mind for the college when they wrote the Constitution. Moreover, reconsidering the Founders’ vision could provide the basis for a solution to the problem that would satisfy everyone.
Everyone? Hmmm.
By the way, Hurricane Sandy's aftermath may give the best reason for not messing with the current system.
Here's why: There's rumors out there that the election may be suspended because people can't vote in some areas.
Well, that doesn't matter because the people don't decide who becomes President. What???? That's right, the people do not decide the outcome of a Presidential contest. The state legislatures do. That's the law. That's the Constitution.
Therefore, you do not suspend an election because some people can't vote. The state legislatures of the affected states will have to step in and pick the electors. That's the law. No need to change anything.
Now, if there's any attempt to change that right before the election, it doesn't pass the smell test. The law has to be the same before the election as after. No changes made after the fact can be legal. To make this attempt invites controversy. Only if someone wants controversy will you see this kind of thing.
Bracken: Did Obama Withhold Cross-Border Authority?
westernrifleshooters
Stinks to high heaven.
- I just can’t believe reporters don’t know enough to ask the right questions! It’s infuriating. [Comment: The media is corrupt. They are in on it. Why be surprised?]
- “No outside military intervention” equals “no cross-border authority” and that constitutes “standing orders” until POTUS changes them. Nobody else can “un-decide” the POTUS decree.
- Panetta is destroying his future reputation entirely, to save Obama. [ Comment: This is a plan to subvert the government and install Obama as dictator.]
- But for sure, the ambassador going to unsecure Benghazi on 9-11 of all days stinks to me of a setup. You can bet Stevens would have told the Turks, “No, 9-11 is not a good day for us,” and stayed in Tripoli behind many high and thick walls. For him to go to dangerous Benghazi on 9-11 means the Turks totally insisted, but why would they care about the meeting date, unless they were in on a “hit” as the Judas goat?[emphasis added]
- And of course, down the road, was the military rescue-in-progress turned back because Obama actually wanted to make sure the consulate was wiped out?
Stinks to high heaven.
Progress isn't what it appears to be
Yesterday, I got caught in a traffic jam I couldn't believe.
It was downtown at the evening rush hour. It took me thirty minutes just to get across downtown Houston. Unreal.
It has always been bad, but not this bad. So, what was the problem?
Back in 2004, a new rail line was opened in the downtown area. You would think that this would improve traffic flow, right? Wrong.
Before anybody rolls there eyes and says this is just another right wing attack on government, just wait a minute.
The problem with this "progress" was that it was not well-conceived. The problem with it is that it interferes with traffic. There's no denying this. The rail line is at ground level. Traffic has to wait for it to pass. The train itself has to travel slower because some traffic may get in its way. It should have been grade separated, but it wasn't. That's the problem. Ground traffic interferes with itself and grinds all traffic to a halt.
That's what was delaying me yesterday. Several light changes and no movement. That didn't used to happen. It was better before the "progress" of a new train facility being opened.
This criticism is from someone who supported the idea of commuter rail. Now, it seems to me that it would be better if the thing was junked.
Another example?
Also, in the last decade, the Katy Freeway ( Interstate 10) was rebuilt. New lanes were added. A toll road was built down the middle with an HOV lane in each direction. All this new concrete should have improved conditions, right? Wrong.
Again, I spent nearly an hour getting from downtown Houston back home last night. Unreal. This didn't happen before the "progress".
This bit of "progress" was the brainchild of a Republican Congressman. My Congressman. It is a bit of a flawed handiwork, in my opinion.
What's the problem with the Katy Freeway? It's hard to say, but I think it is the toll road. Motorists can decide to bypass the backup by using the thing for the price of a toll. What I think is happening is that all this traffic is getting forwarded to a choke point up the road where it ends. It stops everything behind it, you see. Even the toll road gets backed up. Flawed idea.
Sorry, but progress ain't always what it has been billed to be.
It was downtown at the evening rush hour. It took me thirty minutes just to get across downtown Houston. Unreal.
It has always been bad, but not this bad. So, what was the problem?
Back in 2004, a new rail line was opened in the downtown area. You would think that this would improve traffic flow, right? Wrong.
Before anybody rolls there eyes and says this is just another right wing attack on government, just wait a minute.
The problem with this "progress" was that it was not well-conceived. The problem with it is that it interferes with traffic. There's no denying this. The rail line is at ground level. Traffic has to wait for it to pass. The train itself has to travel slower because some traffic may get in its way. It should have been grade separated, but it wasn't. That's the problem. Ground traffic interferes with itself and grinds all traffic to a halt.
That's what was delaying me yesterday. Several light changes and no movement. That didn't used to happen. It was better before the "progress" of a new train facility being opened.
This criticism is from someone who supported the idea of commuter rail. Now, it seems to me that it would be better if the thing was junked.
Another example?
Also, in the last decade, the Katy Freeway ( Interstate 10) was rebuilt. New lanes were added. A toll road was built down the middle with an HOV lane in each direction. All this new concrete should have improved conditions, right? Wrong.
Again, I spent nearly an hour getting from downtown Houston back home last night. Unreal. This didn't happen before the "progress".
This bit of "progress" was the brainchild of a Republican Congressman. My Congressman. It is a bit of a flawed handiwork, in my opinion.
What's the problem with the Katy Freeway? It's hard to say, but I think it is the toll road. Motorists can decide to bypass the backup by using the thing for the price of a toll. What I think is happening is that all this traffic is getting forwarded to a choke point up the road where it ends. It stops everything behind it, you see. Even the toll road gets backed up. Flawed idea.
Sorry, but progress ain't always what it has been billed to be.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Large-Scale Algae Biofuels Currently Unsustainable, New Report Concludes - ScienceInsider
Large-Scale Algae Biofuels Currently Unsustainable, New Report Concludes - ScienceInsider
Comment:
Recycling used water? Wasn't there a good way of doing this? Seems like I read about this and reported on it at some point. Can't find it and I'm out of time.
Update:
Here it is.
The use of water and added nutrients, for example, could drop markedly if engineers come up with ways to efficiently recycle used water and nutrients, perhaps even using nutrient-rich wastewater from agricultural or municipal sources. But for algal biofuels to reach their full potential, researchers will need to integrate these and other advances and ensure that at each stage algae is converted to fuels in the most sustainable way possible.
Comment:
Recycling used water? Wasn't there a good way of doing this? Seems like I read about this and reported on it at some point. Can't find it and I'm out of time.
Update:
Here it is.
The White Rose: A Lesson in Dissent
jewishvirtuallibrary via Free Republic
Comment:
I know it all seems rather harsh to some, but when are you going to object? And how will you object?
Radical forces destroyed the Weimar Republic. These radical forces were Nazism and Communism. This is historical fact.
Could it be that radical forces on both sides of the political divide are destroying the American Republic?
Just asking the question. It may seem awfully "mean" of me to ask such a question, but I don't care what people think. I don't rely upon "conventional wisdom". For that "wisdom" says to shut up and lie low.
In the vogue words of the time, the Scholls and their friends represented the “other” Germany, the land of poets and thinkers, in contrast to the Germany that was reverting to barbarism and trying to take the world with it. What they were and what they did would have been “other” in any society at any time. What they did transcended the easy division of good-German/bad-German and lifted them above the nationalism of time-bound events. Their actions made them enduring symbols of the struggle, universal and timeless, for the freedom of the human spirit wherever and whenever it is threatened.
Comment:
I know it all seems rather harsh to some, but when are you going to object? And how will you object?
Radical forces destroyed the Weimar Republic. These radical forces were Nazism and Communism. This is historical fact.
Could it be that radical forces on both sides of the political divide are destroying the American Republic?
Just asking the question. It may seem awfully "mean" of me to ask such a question, but I don't care what people think. I don't rely upon "conventional wisdom". For that "wisdom" says to shut up and lie low.
Articles: Obama's Communist Cooperation Campaign Proceeds Apace
American Thinker
The Republicans have been well-trained as all of us have. This tiny minority has managed to completely bulldoze us all. When are we going to wake up?
If you believe that the communists are completely misjudging Obama, and that his platform is not actually consistent with their goals, then I challenge you to take a look at their own case for his agenda and try to disprove their assessment. The same challenge goes out to all those in the Republican establishment who have spent the last four years inventing a new euphemistic vocabulary in order to escape the uncomfortable demands of correct English.
The Republicans have been well-trained as all of us have. This tiny minority has managed to completely bulldoze us all. When are we going to wake up?
In Florida, Obamacare to Cause 27% of Doctors to Stop Accepting Medicare Patients
Forbes via Free Republic
Another broken promise. It wasn't supposed to do that, but it has. It is called the Affordable Care Act. How does this information square with the name of the act? It doesn't.
At the risk of being super snarky, I'd say this was Obama's intention. Lots of old, sick, white people you know. Time to die.
A new survey of physicians has found that 30 percent of doctors in Florida intend to place new or additional limits on accepting Medicare patients, with 27 percent altogether refusing to accept new Medicare patients, because of Obamacare’s impact on the fees that Medicare pays to providers of health-care services. In addition, Obamacare will deeply cut Medicare Advantage for 1.2 million Florida seniors who are enrolled in the program, and drive up the cost of private health coverage [emphasis added]
Another broken promise. It wasn't supposed to do that, but it has. It is called the Affordable Care Act. How does this information square with the name of the act? It doesn't.
At the risk of being super snarky, I'd say this was Obama's intention. Lots of old, sick, white people you know. Time to die.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Not so random thoughts on the road
While driving around town, which is how I make my daily bread, thoughts about the final week of this presidential election season were on my mind. Here are those thoughts, for what they are worth:
By the way, this isn't a thought, but I remember hearing this on the last debate's closing statements: Obama objects to Afghanistan. Perhaps because it is a long war, but I suspect that it is because that it is a war at all. On 9-11, the left was the main part of those who didn't think anything should have been done about it if it provoked a larger war. But over 90% thought otherwise. Evidently, there has been a shift in opinion since then. Now, Obama has been lying about Benghazi and blaming America for why we were attacked there. Just thought I'd mention it here.
By the way, this isn't a thought, but I remember hearing this on the last debate's closing statements: Obama objects to Afghanistan. Perhaps because it is a long war, but I suspect that it is because that it is a war at all. On 9-11, the left was the main part of those who didn't think anything should have been done about it if it provoked a larger war. But over 90% thought otherwise. Evidently, there has been a shift in opinion since then. Now, Obama has been lying about Benghazi and blaming America for why we were attacked there. Just thought I'd mention it here.
- So goes the truth, so goes the republic. Comment: Truth must have morality as its basis. If there's no truth, there can be no morality. If there's no morality, there can be no moral basis for a society. From then on, it becomes a matter of brute force and will over the populace. That's not a republic.
- You can catch more flies with a drop of honey than a gallon of gall. Comment: That's what was advised in How to Win Friends and Influence People. It may have been attributed to Abraham Lincoln. I think Romney was trying to catch some flies with all the sweetness. On the other hand, Obama was dispensing a lot of gall. This means that Romney should win right? Not so fast. The real drop of honey that Obama is dispensing is the money from the Treasury. This is what's buying him votes. The gallon of gall is reserved for the Republicans who want to take that away. The lesson in that is that the country may have already been lost because the Democrats can appear to be generous with other peoples money, while the Republicans may actually give more personally, that doesn't seem to count. Why? My theory is something deeply seated in the human character is at work here, and the Republicans think they can address this with facts, logic, and reason. It may not be accessible that way.
- Is it all in vain, then? Comment: If the Republicans have managed to convince so many women that they are cruel, how can they ever get this vote? The Democrats have a lock on this vote and the Republicans can't get it with tricks and gimmicks. Being nice, sweet, and saccharine isn't going to fool anybody who thinks the way the Democrats have trained them to think.
- Has Obama crossed the Rubicon? Comment: The saying "crossing the Rubicon" means going past the point of no return. I think that may be the case with Benghazi. If Obama can get away with this, the Republic is dead. Just as dead as when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. It may well be why he did it. He wanted to establish that he could do something like this and get away with it. What he's trying to get away with is that his Presidency is more important than any particular individual. That's not been true up until now. Up until now, if any individual was killed or allowed to be killed in order to save a President's political skin, that President would be finished. ( For the truth of this in art, see Stephen King's The Dead Zone) He must know this, that is why he is lying. He is probably hoping that the lies will go by and he will get away with something in the same way that Clinton did. Clinton lied under oath. For the Repulbicans to depend on the legal process to get him for it is wishful thinking. It didn't work with Clinton. It won't work for Obama and this either. For if Obama wins, he can point to the election and say that the people have already decided in his favor. That will end any challenge to what he has done. He will have political cover and the game is over. So will the Republic. Only the people don't know that because they are being kept in the dark.
- Does anybody know how to play this game? Casey Stengel said this about the 1962 expansion team New York Mets- Meaning? Romney may be losing by default. Comment--- Why has Romney gone so soft? Republicans have let themselves be intimidated by the liberals that they don't know how to win this fight. David Horowitz once said the same thing--- the Republicans do not know how to fight the left. Now I can see why he said that, and why we are so much in trouble. The Republican just won't fight because they are described as being mean and that has them intimidated. The left has trained everybody so well to accept their premises. They are a small minority in this country, but they are very influential. Well beyond their numbers. When are Republicans going to fight for this country. Ever?
What are you prepared to do? ( revisited)
There may be a temptation to emulate movies, like the Kevin Costner movie, The Untouchables.
Like a lot of things that have gotten into our culture, this one may be tainted too. At least it is, according to a customer reviewer over at Amazon. It was grossly inaccurate, according to that review.
I'm reminded of the Mordor post of Bill Whittle. You should be suspicious of movies, especially those made by today's Hollywood.
Yet, I like to cite movies in order to make a point. Mordor is a point too, made by a movie---The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
Here's another, but it isn't a movie. It was a series---The Ascent of Man. In particular, I'm citing Bronowski's Warning.
Like a lot of things that have gotten into our culture, this one may be tainted too. At least it is, according to a customer reviewer over at Amazon. It was grossly inaccurate, according to that review.
I'm reminded of the Mordor post of Bill Whittle. You should be suspicious of movies, especially those made by today's Hollywood.
Yet, I like to cite movies in order to make a point. Mordor is a point too, made by a movie---The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
Here's another, but it isn't a movie. It was a series---The Ascent of Man. In particular, I'm citing Bronowski's Warning.
Frog and Scorpion ( repost )
This new blogger interface isn't cooperating. I updated that old post hoping that it would be forced to the top. Instead, I am copying it verbatim and reposting it here. It is especially relevant today.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
When it comes to this Climate of Hate stuff, I am reminded of the story of the Frog and Scorpion. It took me a long circuitous route in order to get to this conclusion and it requires some explanation.
This charge being made of "vitriolic" rhetoric that is somehow connected to the shootings in Arizona appears to me to very dishonest. It is the kind of dishonesty that you find in liberals. Surely they are not so dumb as to believe that a few words is going to cause bad things to happen, for if they really believed that, they would tone down their own language. Liberals are not necessarily stupid, despite their appearances sometimes. They just have this problem with basic concepts like integrity, honesty and honor. Use those words around a liberal, and you'll get a sneering response. It is so old fashioned to them.
It reminds me of what Leo Durocher used to say: "Nice guys finish last." Politics is a tough competitive occupation, not unlike competitive sports. Knocking the other guy silly in order to get an edge is okay if you can get away with it. In fact, it ought to be expected. Hence you get the response that the Mahablog had, in which I referenced in an earlier post. Any complaints about the rough tactics are attributed to weakness on the protestors part. Never mind the fact that it is the very same thing that the critics are saying themselves. The critics want their adversaries to tone it down, but that won't be reciprocated. Even more, not only will it not be reciprocated, but any complaints will be characterized as crybabying.
But their is no honor no integrity in the charge. Never mind that, they'll say. Nice guys finish last.
It may be a little starry eyed of me, but I do think that conservatives do care more about honor and integrity than the liberals. I'll buttress that opinion with a few facts which can't be denied. When a conservative breaks a promise, like George H.W. Bush's "read my lips" promise not to raise taxes, the betrayal is taken very seriously. But if a liberal, like Clinton says he "didn't have sex with that woman", and it turns out to be a lie, nobody seems to be shocked. The two sides are judged by different standards. Or to put it more accurately, one side gets judged by its own standards and the other doesn't get judged because it has no standards to begin with.
When I think of liberals, I think of them as the Al Capone types. That may seem a bit harsh, but let me explain. In his book "Success Through a Positive Mental Atttitude", Napoleon Hill discusses his interview with the notorious gangster. When Hill asked Capone why he did the things he did, Capone said "I had to." He felt it was necessary for him to be dishonest. But Hill points out that necessity has nothing to do with the choice of being dishonest. Dishonesty is a choice, nobody forces anybody to be dishonest. Nobody forced Capone to be a gangster. That was his choice. Yet Capone no doubt believed that he was being forced into becoming a gangster. People can rationalize any behavior if it suits them in some way. If it suits the liberals to lie about the conservatives, in particular about a certain tragic event, why they'll just say that they have to. And they'll feel perfectly justified in doing so.
So that brings me back to the Frog and Scorpion parable. It is in the Scorpions' nature to sting the Frog while the Frog is carrying the Scorpion to safety even though it will kill the both of them. The Scorpion can't help itself. It would prefer death to them both than to have his enemies succeed or survive. The Scorpion isn't motivated by good will, but by enmity. Therefore, you can't believe what the "Scorpions" say. If you do, and you trust them, you go down the drink with them.
Update:
This is being reposted from almost two years ago after the Gifford shooting in Arizona. It is about the "Climate of Hate" charge leveled at the right and how the left was attempting to say that this climate caused the shooting.
It is especially important now with what is happening in the election. They may charge the same climate of hate is what is bringing Obama down, if that is indeed what is happening ( Obama going down).
The gold standard is the truth. Obama didn't trust us with the truth. His excuse will be the same as Capone's.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
When it comes to this Climate of Hate stuff, I am reminded of the story of the Frog and Scorpion. It took me a long circuitous route in order to get to this conclusion and it requires some explanation.
This charge being made of "vitriolic" rhetoric that is somehow connected to the shootings in Arizona appears to me to very dishonest. It is the kind of dishonesty that you find in liberals. Surely they are not so dumb as to believe that a few words is going to cause bad things to happen, for if they really believed that, they would tone down their own language. Liberals are not necessarily stupid, despite their appearances sometimes. They just have this problem with basic concepts like integrity, honesty and honor. Use those words around a liberal, and you'll get a sneering response. It is so old fashioned to them.
It reminds me of what Leo Durocher used to say: "Nice guys finish last." Politics is a tough competitive occupation, not unlike competitive sports. Knocking the other guy silly in order to get an edge is okay if you can get away with it. In fact, it ought to be expected. Hence you get the response that the Mahablog had, in which I referenced in an earlier post. Any complaints about the rough tactics are attributed to weakness on the protestors part. Never mind the fact that it is the very same thing that the critics are saying themselves. The critics want their adversaries to tone it down, but that won't be reciprocated. Even more, not only will it not be reciprocated, but any complaints will be characterized as crybabying.
But their is no honor no integrity in the charge. Never mind that, they'll say. Nice guys finish last.
It may be a little starry eyed of me, but I do think that conservatives do care more about honor and integrity than the liberals. I'll buttress that opinion with a few facts which can't be denied. When a conservative breaks a promise, like George H.W. Bush's "read my lips" promise not to raise taxes, the betrayal is taken very seriously. But if a liberal, like Clinton says he "didn't have sex with that woman", and it turns out to be a lie, nobody seems to be shocked. The two sides are judged by different standards. Or to put it more accurately, one side gets judged by its own standards and the other doesn't get judged because it has no standards to begin with.
When I think of liberals, I think of them as the Al Capone types. That may seem a bit harsh, but let me explain. In his book "Success Through a Positive Mental Atttitude", Napoleon Hill discusses his interview with the notorious gangster. When Hill asked Capone why he did the things he did, Capone said "I had to." He felt it was necessary for him to be dishonest. But Hill points out that necessity has nothing to do with the choice of being dishonest. Dishonesty is a choice, nobody forces anybody to be dishonest. Nobody forced Capone to be a gangster. That was his choice. Yet Capone no doubt believed that he was being forced into becoming a gangster. People can rationalize any behavior if it suits them in some way. If it suits the liberals to lie about the conservatives, in particular about a certain tragic event, why they'll just say that they have to. And they'll feel perfectly justified in doing so.
So that brings me back to the Frog and Scorpion parable. It is in the Scorpions' nature to sting the Frog while the Frog is carrying the Scorpion to safety even though it will kill the both of them. The Scorpion can't help itself. It would prefer death to them both than to have his enemies succeed or survive. The Scorpion isn't motivated by good will, but by enmity. Therefore, you can't believe what the "Scorpions" say. If you do, and you trust them, you go down the drink with them.
Update:
This is being reposted from almost two years ago after the Gifford shooting in Arizona. It is about the "Climate of Hate" charge leveled at the right and how the left was attempting to say that this climate caused the shooting.
It is especially important now with what is happening in the election. They may charge the same climate of hate is what is bringing Obama down, if that is indeed what is happening ( Obama going down).
The gold standard is the truth. Obama didn't trust us with the truth. His excuse will be the same as Capone's.
Sandy equals God's Wrath?
More temptation to make connections to events that may have no connection whatsoever.
We've got this superstorm that is happening right at an election. We have a major brewing scandal that is happening right at an election.
Is it all a coincidence, or is it an Act of God? One is tempted to jump to conclusions.
The terrorist attack at Benghazi was man made. The response to it was man made. The election of Barack Obama was man made.
But the storm is not man made. It is hitting in a "blue" region, just like 9-11. The coincidences are startling.
Political manipulation is man made. It has been going on for years. I've been warning about it for years.
If Obama was wrong in 2008, he is certainly wrong now. Nothing has happened that has changed that opinion. Events have shown the opposite.
Those who manipulate are having the tables turned on them. Poetic justice, or an act of God?
How far can reason guide the affairs of men? The answer to that question may be disturbing if you believe in the ability of reason to guide the affairs of men.
We've got this superstorm that is happening right at an election. We have a major brewing scandal that is happening right at an election.
Is it all a coincidence, or is it an Act of God? One is tempted to jump to conclusions.
The terrorist attack at Benghazi was man made. The response to it was man made. The election of Barack Obama was man made.
But the storm is not man made. It is hitting in a "blue" region, just like 9-11. The coincidences are startling.
Political manipulation is man made. It has been going on for years. I've been warning about it for years.
If Obama was wrong in 2008, he is certainly wrong now. Nothing has happened that has changed that opinion. Events have shown the opposite.
Those who manipulate are having the tables turned on them. Poetic justice, or an act of God?
How far can reason guide the affairs of men? The answer to that question may be disturbing if you believe in the ability of reason to guide the affairs of men.
Advice from a wise head
Don't go overboard with this Benghazi stuff. via Instapundit
I agreed in advance.
Update:
But the temptation is hard to resist.
Update:
Very, very hard indeed.
Update:
Nixonian statements: "I am not a crook."
I agreed in advance.
Update:
But the temptation is hard to resist.
Update:
Very, very hard indeed.
Update:
Nixonian statements: "I am not a crook."
Monday, October 29, 2012
Big Idea: Bring Back the "Cold Fusion" Dream
discover magazine via Instapundit
Comment:
Who cares what it is called? Or how it works? Imagine forcing the lights to be turned off because no one had a theory for electricity, nor knew how light bulbs worked.
So far, Larsen still has only a theory and some circumstantial evidence. But if LENRs could be proved and tamed—a very big if—the effect could be transformative. Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA Langley, wrote in an online article that LENRs could potentially satisfy the world’s energy needs at a quarter the cost of coal.
Comment:
Who cares what it is called? Or how it works? Imagine forcing the lights to be turned off because no one had a theory for electricity, nor knew how light bulbs worked.
Coaster no. 16, thrust estimates based on Shuttle performance
A look at some Shuttle performance data. If the coaster can match this, it can give us an idea of what to expect.
The caption to the pic below calculates thrust per pound of hydrogen expended. Question: Can the coaster expel a pound of hydrogen per second? If so, the thrust would be 1104 lbs thrust ( I think).
A quick look at chamber pressure. It is lower than the hydrogen tanks for fuel cell vehicles that I've seen. At just under 3000k psi, it is significantly less than the 5000 psi that I've seen for those. This appears feasible, by those standards.
Some general performance data to throw in there.
The rocket equations that I've have on spreadsheet show some anomalies. If mass is increased, delta v goes down---all other factors equal. I need to look at that closely when time permits.
It now appears that the coaster cannot launch itself. How to launch then, from the moon?
Thought: what if you were to use hunter gas gun for this?
You can use the gas gun to send up fuel for a reusable rocket system that could land on moon and return to be used again and again. This system can also deploy coasters.
Miscellaneous thought: reusability problem: have to carry mass with you if you want full reusability. That's why you're stuff needs to be small. Gas guns get around part of this problem. Small projectiles to deliver fuel are not wasting so much matter. Won't matter so much if they are not fully reusable.
The caption to the pic below calculates thrust per pound of hydrogen expended. Question: Can the coaster expel a pound of hydrogen per second? If so, the thrust would be 1104 lbs thrust ( I think).
 |
| 274.71 gals/sec;1864.88 lbs-sec/gal; 1.69 lbs/gal; 1104.39 ratio of thrust per pound |
Some general performance data to throw in there.
 |
| Shuttle combustion chamber reaches 3315 C. That's hotter than the goal for the coaster. May need to get the temperatures up for the coaster. It may not be hot enough. |
The rocket equations that I've have on spreadsheet show some anomalies. If mass is increased, delta v goes down---all other factors equal. I need to look at that closely when time permits.
It now appears that the coaster cannot launch itself. How to launch then, from the moon?
Thought: what if you were to use hunter gas gun for this?
You can use the gas gun to send up fuel for a reusable rocket system that could land on moon and return to be used again and again. This system can also deploy coasters.
Miscellaneous thought: reusability problem: have to carry mass with you if you want full reusability. That's why you're stuff needs to be small. Gas guns get around part of this problem. Small projectiles to deliver fuel are not wasting so much matter. Won't matter so much if they are not fully reusable.
Strange days
This could be a rather interesting week. What are the facts regarding Benghazi?
We may never know that. But it has been fairly clear that Obama must have known what was going on there at the time and that the violence wasn't because of a video. This is what he subsequently claimed and it is false.
It looks as if the administration was at odds with itself. Speculation was increasing about the division between the Secretary of State Clinton and Obama. Somebody was going to take the fall for this, and it looked like the Clintons decided it wasn't going to be them. Now that appears to be changing.
The Democrats probably decided that this was very dangerous to their interests and so they are probably circling the wagons. In my opinion, they are going to brazen it out until the end of the election and then deal with the outcome afterward.
In the meanwhile, the news networks are not reporting the obvious fact that the President has lied about Benghazi and that he is doing so for political reasons. I suspect that this is being done in order to build up the story that the President is being run out of office for racial reasons.
This is setting up future unrest no matter what the outcome of the election is. For, if the Democrats lose, they will claim racial injustice--- and the Republicans will claim treason if they lose. This is a witches brew of instability being concocted here.
The truth would go a long way towards calming things down, but instead the thing is being whipped up into an emotional quagmire of mutual suspicion. The suspicion builds as the speculation builds about what the truth actually is. But the truth will not be reported because it is very damaging to the interests of the Democrats. The Democrats control the media, so the voters are not likely to be allowed to know the facts of the situation. Many would not believe it even if it were reported accurately.
It is like a war, where the truth is the first casualty.
In the meantime, it is being reported as being a tight race. We could have another election controversy as in 2000 and this could add to the emotional mix. Things were a lot better in 2000, the country could handle that. But could it handle another election controversy like that in these conditions?
There needs to be a resolution to this, but it doesn't look like it will be a clear one. That's of course, if the news that the election is actually close. It may not be. But is probably is.
If the facts remain as hidden as possible, it will allow the bad guys to escape. There will be bad feelings all around no matter what the outcome. A clear outcome is not desired, I suspect. The more confusion, the better. It may well succeed.
Things could get dicey if those on the losing end decide that they cannot accept the outcome. There are vague threats out there. Riots perhaps? Mutiny amongst the military? States leaving the Union?
We may never know that. But it has been fairly clear that Obama must have known what was going on there at the time and that the violence wasn't because of a video. This is what he subsequently claimed and it is false.
It looks as if the administration was at odds with itself. Speculation was increasing about the division between the Secretary of State Clinton and Obama. Somebody was going to take the fall for this, and it looked like the Clintons decided it wasn't going to be them. Now that appears to be changing.
The Democrats probably decided that this was very dangerous to their interests and so they are probably circling the wagons. In my opinion, they are going to brazen it out until the end of the election and then deal with the outcome afterward.
In the meanwhile, the news networks are not reporting the obvious fact that the President has lied about Benghazi and that he is doing so for political reasons. I suspect that this is being done in order to build up the story that the President is being run out of office for racial reasons.
This is setting up future unrest no matter what the outcome of the election is. For, if the Democrats lose, they will claim racial injustice--- and the Republicans will claim treason if they lose. This is a witches brew of instability being concocted here.
The truth would go a long way towards calming things down, but instead the thing is being whipped up into an emotional quagmire of mutual suspicion. The suspicion builds as the speculation builds about what the truth actually is. But the truth will not be reported because it is very damaging to the interests of the Democrats. The Democrats control the media, so the voters are not likely to be allowed to know the facts of the situation. Many would not believe it even if it were reported accurately.
It is like a war, where the truth is the first casualty.
In the meantime, it is being reported as being a tight race. We could have another election controversy as in 2000 and this could add to the emotional mix. Things were a lot better in 2000, the country could handle that. But could it handle another election controversy like that in these conditions?
There needs to be a resolution to this, but it doesn't look like it will be a clear one. That's of course, if the news that the election is actually close. It may not be. But is probably is.
If the facts remain as hidden as possible, it will allow the bad guys to escape. There will be bad feelings all around no matter what the outcome. A clear outcome is not desired, I suspect. The more confusion, the better. It may well succeed.
Things could get dicey if those on the losing end decide that they cannot accept the outcome. There are vague threats out there. Riots perhaps? Mutiny amongst the military? States leaving the Union?
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Admiral Ackbar's "It's a trap!" scene
This could be a General Custer type of thinking that is too convoluted and likely to be wrong. I got the impression from the Mahablogger that she knew something and this whole thing about Benghazi just seems too easy.
Now the Democrats are circling their wagons. They may be angling for some kind of situation in which they can discredit Republicans. So, Republicans had better watch out. This was too easy. Clinton may have been running some type of false flag deal where she was in conflict with Obama. They may be thinking that they can outsmart the Republicans and pull off a coup.
In other words, it's a trap!
Boortz: Obama Knew
Nealz Nuze
This isn't exactly the latest, but it is a summary of the situation.
Doesn't surprise me. I had info that strongly indicated that Obama had to know. I had this two weeks ago.
Ok. So now what?
The Democrats are circling their wagons. They are going to try to brazen this out. It may even work. But if it doesn't, they are in heap big doo-doo. If they do succeed, the rest of us are heap big doo-doo, kemosabe.
One thing I wanted to say today, but didn't. I think Obama shouldn't be pursued legally. He should be allowed to exit without legal charges being filed against him. This is what was given to Nixon and what was given for Bush. Bush did it for Clinton, and now Romney, if elected, should do it for Obama.
I know this is against accountability. But it is perhaps the only way to avoid civil war. Now think about that for a moment.
If Obama thinks he's going to lose and he believes that he will be sent to jail or even executed, he may get very, very dangerous. Think about what you are doing, people.
This isn't exactly the latest, but it is a summary of the situation.
This is really serious stuff. At this point, unless you are a fool, you shouldn’t just be disappointed with Obama ... you should be completely disgusted with Obama. He is a vile, disgusting man. We know that now.
Doesn't surprise me. I had info that strongly indicated that Obama had to know. I had this two weeks ago.
Ok. So now what?
The Democrats are circling their wagons. They are going to try to brazen this out. It may even work. But if it doesn't, they are in heap big doo-doo. If they do succeed, the rest of us are heap big doo-doo, kemosabe.
One thing I wanted to say today, but didn't. I think Obama shouldn't be pursued legally. He should be allowed to exit without legal charges being filed against him. This is what was given to Nixon and what was given for Bush. Bush did it for Clinton, and now Romney, if elected, should do it for Obama.
I know this is against accountability. But it is perhaps the only way to avoid civil war. Now think about that for a moment.
If Obama thinks he's going to lose and he believes that he will be sent to jail or even executed, he may get very, very dangerous. Think about what you are doing, people.
Mexican Point of View of Obama´s Presidency
Great to hear this, but also sad that it doesn't come from inside this country nearly enough. People do not understand what is being done to them.
How would you cast this movie?
That is, the scene from this movie Silence of the Lambs?
Your characters are the people, conservatives, liberals, and a bad guy--- the bad guy could be al Qaeda.
Who's trying to save the sheep? Who's trying to slaughter the sheep? Clarice opens the gate, but the sheep won't run away. They are confused, she says. Why are the people, who are like the sheep, confused?
It is like a psychological test as the movie is. But who is getting tested and what is the implications of failure?
Your characters are the people, conservatives, liberals, and a bad guy--- the bad guy could be al Qaeda.
Who's trying to save the sheep? Who's trying to slaughter the sheep? Clarice opens the gate, but the sheep won't run away. They are confused, she says. Why are the people, who are like the sheep, confused?
It is like a psychological test as the movie is. But who is getting tested and what is the implications of failure?
AC-130U Gunship was On-Scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin Refused to Let It Fire (Updated)
PJ Tatler
Lots of speculation as to why these weren't used.
It all goes back to deception. The people are being fooled. Obama is waging War on America. He is doing it by following Sun Tsu's advice. Warfare is all deception said Sun Tsu.
Obama takes out bin Laden in order to appear tough on al Qaeda. But it is all show and no dough. It's like Clinton sending a million dollar missile to hit a 10 dollar tent and a camel in the butt. As Bush said, no less.
Therefore, they cannot be seen as too weak not to take out bin Laden. Obama can look tough and strong and not risk a soldier's life. Meanwhile, he is just doing the same kind of thing Clinton did. Which led us directly to 9-11.
I discussed all this back in 2004 on my original Boots and Oil blog. Taking out bin Laden doesn't solve everything. But the liberals want it to so they can quit the war on terror. They don't want to fight the war on terror or any other war. But if they can pretend to fight without any casualties, then they'll do that. The left will never stand for casualties. So, it means doing nothing--- their preferred mode. They can pretend to fight in order to fool the public. If anything happens in the future, they can blame somebody else!
That's why Obama doesn't want to capture bin Laden. It is also why Clinton didn't want bin Laden. They don't want him to make them look bad politically. A lot easier politically just killing him. Saves them the headaches of putting him on trial. If he went on trial, they'd have to give him a fair trial. This means a lot of complications and a risk of acquittal. They cannot risk that. So, bin Laden must die. Bin Laden must die so Obama can look good.
With all Clinton's failures to get bin Laden, it could not be risked again by telling Pakistan about it. Nor could he could go Godfather and make an offer they can't refuse. For one thing, the Pakistanis won't believe him and two, even if they did, and turn him over, they are back to the situation above--- which POTUS doesn't want. Pakistan won't believe Obama because Obama wants peace at any price--- even if he has to surrender in order to get it.
So, the left and Obama must fool the public that there's peace over there. If a Spectre is lost in a firefight with terrorists on the ground, being armed with the missing manpads, it destroys that carefully crafted image. Lot easier to just stand down and not do anything and lie about it until after election day. The left must have good optics. A war with deaths is just not good optics. A few dead people at an embassy is better than a lost Spectre brought down with missing manpads.
They, meaning the left, and Obama don't care about the longer picture in Afghanistan- nor the Middle East. Best to just bug out like in Iraq. It is now a selling point. Obama has brought peace in our time! Sound familiar? It would if history was taught, but it seems doubtful to me that many people understand the significance of what Obama is doing in terms of history.
I got into a long argument with an Obama supporter about this very issue in 2008. It doesn't matter anymore and nobody cares about World War II anymore. Nor about 9-11. The left has smeared Bush with 9-11 even though Clinton could have had bin Laden but refused the deal. Now they have got the public believing their lies and it is seen as Bush's fault. Lot easier to believe that than to fight a difficult war. So, Obama is playing to that well-crafted lie and public self-deception by doing nothing. People buy into it and he gets re-elected. Anything damaging gets shunted off after the election when he is safe for another 4 years.
There were two AC-130Us deployed to Libya in March as part of Operation Unified Protector.
The AC-130U is a very effective third-generation fire-support aircraft, capable of continuous and extremely accurate fire onto multiple targets.
Lots of speculation as to why these weren't used.
It all goes back to deception. The people are being fooled. Obama is waging War on America. He is doing it by following Sun Tsu's advice. Warfare is all deception said Sun Tsu.
Obama takes out bin Laden in order to appear tough on al Qaeda. But it is all show and no dough. It's like Clinton sending a million dollar missile to hit a 10 dollar tent and a camel in the butt. As Bush said, no less.
Therefore, they cannot be seen as too weak not to take out bin Laden. Obama can look tough and strong and not risk a soldier's life. Meanwhile, he is just doing the same kind of thing Clinton did. Which led us directly to 9-11.
I discussed all this back in 2004 on my original Boots and Oil blog. Taking out bin Laden doesn't solve everything. But the liberals want it to so they can quit the war on terror. They don't want to fight the war on terror or any other war. But if they can pretend to fight without any casualties, then they'll do that. The left will never stand for casualties. So, it means doing nothing--- their preferred mode. They can pretend to fight in order to fool the public. If anything happens in the future, they can blame somebody else!
That's why Obama doesn't want to capture bin Laden. It is also why Clinton didn't want bin Laden. They don't want him to make them look bad politically. A lot easier politically just killing him. Saves them the headaches of putting him on trial. If he went on trial, they'd have to give him a fair trial. This means a lot of complications and a risk of acquittal. They cannot risk that. So, bin Laden must die. Bin Laden must die so Obama can look good.
With all Clinton's failures to get bin Laden, it could not be risked again by telling Pakistan about it. Nor could he could go Godfather and make an offer they can't refuse. For one thing, the Pakistanis won't believe him and two, even if they did, and turn him over, they are back to the situation above--- which POTUS doesn't want. Pakistan won't believe Obama because Obama wants peace at any price--- even if he has to surrender in order to get it.
So, the left and Obama must fool the public that there's peace over there. If a Spectre is lost in a firefight with terrorists on the ground, being armed with the missing manpads, it destroys that carefully crafted image. Lot easier to just stand down and not do anything and lie about it until after election day. The left must have good optics. A war with deaths is just not good optics. A few dead people at an embassy is better than a lost Spectre brought down with missing manpads.
They, meaning the left, and Obama don't care about the longer picture in Afghanistan- nor the Middle East. Best to just bug out like in Iraq. It is now a selling point. Obama has brought peace in our time! Sound familiar? It would if history was taught, but it seems doubtful to me that many people understand the significance of what Obama is doing in terms of history.
I got into a long argument with an Obama supporter about this very issue in 2008. It doesn't matter anymore and nobody cares about World War II anymore. Nor about 9-11. The left has smeared Bush with 9-11 even though Clinton could have had bin Laden but refused the deal. Now they have got the public believing their lies and it is seen as Bush's fault. Lot easier to believe that than to fight a difficult war. So, Obama is playing to that well-crafted lie and public self-deception by doing nothing. People buy into it and he gets re-elected. Anything damaging gets shunted off after the election when he is safe for another 4 years.
Crunch time--- where the game is won or lost
A sporting metaphor which is being applied to the national situation as it now stands. As best as I can tell, I might add.
Just checked Barnhardt's site. She is now broke. The IRS has busted her and taken her bank accounts. This is what I'd call an example being made. For what exactly? Probably for defiance of government authority. When the government slams down hard on somebody like that, you can consider it an act of last resort. The government does not like to do that.
It means that they are losing control and they know it. It is the same thing that's happening in Syria and what was happening in Libya. Funny thing is that it is now happening to the good 'ol USA. (Hilarious, if I may borrow a line from a movie.) Or what used to be the good 'ol USA. Expect more and more of the same in coming days.
She wrote some more stuff. That reminds me that I missed some important stuff this past week. This goes for a lot of working people out there. If your eyes and ears aren't glued on to what's going on --- on a minute by minute basis, you are apt to miss something important.
The thing I missed was on Barnhardt's site. Something that was also on Rush's show, but I missed it. Big, big shit going down. BIG. I remember hearing Rush talk about the firing of the special prosecutor during the Nixon era and Watergate. This compares to that, yes. The Saturday Night Massacre, it was called.
There was talk of a military coup. I heard this from my brother who was stationed in Hawaii at the time. Big shit, man.
Obama is in crunch time. He is either pulls out of this as dictator, or he is sacked. Plain and simple. Things cannot go on as before.
Just checked Barnhardt's site. She is now broke. The IRS has busted her and taken her bank accounts. This is what I'd call an example being made. For what exactly? Probably for defiance of government authority. When the government slams down hard on somebody like that, you can consider it an act of last resort. The government does not like to do that.
It means that they are losing control and they know it. It is the same thing that's happening in Syria and what was happening in Libya. Funny thing is that it is now happening to the good 'ol USA. (Hilarious, if I may borrow a line from a movie.) Or what used to be the good 'ol USA. Expect more and more of the same in coming days.
She wrote some more stuff. That reminds me that I missed some important stuff this past week. This goes for a lot of working people out there. If your eyes and ears aren't glued on to what's going on --- on a minute by minute basis, you are apt to miss something important.
The thing I missed was on Barnhardt's site. Something that was also on Rush's show, but I missed it. Big, big shit going down. BIG. I remember hearing Rush talk about the firing of the special prosecutor during the Nixon era and Watergate. This compares to that, yes. The Saturday Night Massacre, it was called.
There was talk of a military coup. I heard this from my brother who was stationed in Hawaii at the time. Big shit, man.
Obama is in crunch time. He is either pulls out of this as dictator, or he is sacked. Plain and simple. Things cannot go on as before.
A couple of proverbs about the truth
In Spanish:
Sólo los niños y los locos dicen la verdad.
Only children and fools tell the truth.
In Arabic:
لا بد له من الذي يقول الحقيقة دائما قدم واحدة في الركاب.
He who tells the truth must always have one foot in the stirrup.
I think of these proverbs when I think of Barak Obama and I read something like this from Clarence Page.
These people are scary. Things are getting scary in this country now.
Telling the truth was to be expected in this country--- at least I thought it was so. Maybe I'm the fool. But telling the truth now may actually be dangerous. The loons are in charge. But they think you are the loon.
Classic projection coming from somewhere--- is it me or Page? Well, who's lying about the YouTube videos, Mr. Page? Or do you really believe Obama is telling the truth? Are you joking? Sadly, I don't think he is.
Sólo los niños y los locos dicen la verdad.
Only children and fools tell the truth.
In Arabic:
لا بد له من الذي يقول الحقيقة دائما قدم واحدة في الركاب.
He who tells the truth must always have one foot in the stirrup.
I think of these proverbs when I think of Barak Obama and I read something like this from Clarence Page.
These people are scary. Things are getting scary in this country now.
Telling the truth was to be expected in this country--- at least I thought it was so. Maybe I'm the fool. But telling the truth now may actually be dangerous. The loons are in charge. But they think you are the loon.
Classic projection coming from somewhere--- is it me or Page? Well, who's lying about the YouTube videos, Mr. Page? Or do you really believe Obama is telling the truth? Are you joking? Sadly, I don't think he is.
Hurricane Sandy
It doesn't look like much in terms of wind speeds, but I remember Ike just 4 years ago.
I've been through a couple hurricanes that went through the Houston area. It seemed like Ike in 2004 was worse than Alicia was in 1983. It seemed, for me at least, that Houston was pretty much back to normal the same day it went through. Ike was felt for weeks throughout the city. Alicia was much more localized with the damages. The point is that Alicia had higher sustained winds than Ike, yet Ike was far more troublesome.
This is coming on the week before a Presidential election. One gets all kinds of thoughts running through your head at a time like this. For instance, will the election be postponed? If it is, is it because Obama feels like he's losing, and this could save him? So on, and so forth.
This may seem petty, but the Democrats have used hurricanes for political effect before. This could be no exception. I suspect that no matter what happens with this storm, it will be spun to their benefit. So, it isn't the storm, but those who are using it for politics. It will get used, just like Katrina and others. Everything gets politicized in this country these days. In the old days, it would just be a storm. Now, it is a political event.
It is, after all, the weather. Something that we all lived with and that was just nature. It's what people used to talk about in order to be polite. Now you can't even do that without being political. It is also political for me to mention this, but it is what it is--- you can't escape it. It wasn't the Republicans nor the conservatives who made weather into a political thing.
I've been through a couple hurricanes that went through the Houston area. It seemed like Ike in 2004 was worse than Alicia was in 1983. It seemed, for me at least, that Houston was pretty much back to normal the same day it went through. Ike was felt for weeks throughout the city. Alicia was much more localized with the damages. The point is that Alicia had higher sustained winds than Ike, yet Ike was far more troublesome.
This is coming on the week before a Presidential election. One gets all kinds of thoughts running through your head at a time like this. For instance, will the election be postponed? If it is, is it because Obama feels like he's losing, and this could save him? So on, and so forth.
This may seem petty, but the Democrats have used hurricanes for political effect before. This could be no exception. I suspect that no matter what happens with this storm, it will be spun to their benefit. So, it isn't the storm, but those who are using it for politics. It will get used, just like Katrina and others. Everything gets politicized in this country these days. In the old days, it would just be a storm. Now, it is a political event.
It is, after all, the weather. Something that we all lived with and that was just nature. It's what people used to talk about in order to be polite. Now you can't even do that without being political. It is also political for me to mention this, but it is what it is--- you can't escape it. It wasn't the Republicans nor the conservatives who made weather into a political thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)