Saturday, February 1, 2014
Interesting remarks in the comment section of the post. It gives a bit of perspective on what they are attempting to accomplish.
It's true that it's hard to move on to new sources of energy, but one thing I have to keep pointing out is that molten-salt reactors were proven in the lab, but never commercialized. The failure to exploit that scientific knowledge is all too often misjudged as a bad reflection upon its feasibility for commercialization. Such may not be the case.
Everybody has their own ideas about what should be done, but if you are going to try something new, why not try something that has been scientifically proven? A lot of the new ideas have not been. This idea of aneutronic fusion has not been proven.
This doesn't mean I think that the research should be discontinued. Far from it. It means that we are just spinning our wheels when something is good and isn't developed. It looks to me like we are just spinning our wheels all too often.
One thing I didn't expect was that people need 3.8 lbs of food per day in space. For a trip to Mars, that translates into 7000 lbs of food per person. Such a large mass has to be lifted and powered to Mars and back. This is a big hurdle that must be overcome if such a mission is to ever be attempted. One way to accomplish that is to grow your own food in space. In fact, the more of everything that can be recycled, the less weight that will have to be carried along. This will greatly simplify the mission.
The point that the blog's author Zimmerman is making is that NASA isn't doing this kind of research. Could that be one of the reasons why they are having to plan so many rocket launches in order to get the crew sufficiently supplied for such a mission?
Consider this: For every pound that gets to orbit, you may need up to 100 lbs of launch weight. If you reduce that in half by growing your own food, that will help a whole lot. If you reduce it by 90%, it may even eliminate some of those launches.
The cuts in spending, if they occurred at all, wouldn't have prevented an adequate defense. This is what Dick Morris was getting at in his lunch alert posted here yesterday.
There was a request for more security, which could have been filled, but was denied by Panetta. It was denied because they sought diplomatic immunity since they would be under the State Department. This was refused by Panetta. If it was under the State Department, the military personnel would have had diplomatic immunity, but instead would have been posted under the Pentagon, which doesn't have such immunity.
The result is nobody got posted there at all when the warnings were out that the threat was increasing. Fewer people meant an invitation to attack, and that is what happened. It had nothing to do with money. The personnel would have still been paid in either case. No additional monies were necessary.
You could probably cite other examples, but you won't be able to do so, because there is a cover-up.
Maddow, by spouting the party line about "cuts" is helping out the Democrats. Cheerleader or not, she isn't acting like a journalist. Otherwise she would know this.
Awhile back, I recall that anyone who disputed the official economic statistics in Argentina could be in trouble. To which I compared the lack of truth telling from our media about our own economy.
All this in less than one year. We could be next.
Why bring this up? Well, there's this President who wants to suppress the Tea Party for no other reason than for opposing him. He wants to put Dinesh D'Souza behind bars for making a critical film of him. He put a guy in bars after the Benghazi attacks that killed 4 Americans and was subsequently blamed on a video the man made. Even though making that film was totally legal. Perhaps he's behind the efforts to push Cris Christie out of office, even though Christie helped him get reelected.
Why would Obama be behind the Christie "scandal"? Obama could fear Christie, as he is a former prosecutor. He could fear Christie because Christie turned on his own party, and could easily turn on him. He is a threat to Hillary, who he may have a deal with that could shield him from any prosecution in the future after Obama leaves office.
Argentina is a failed state and we are getting there.
What are you prepared to do? In this movie, the old beat cop played by Sean Connery, was prepared to go all the way in order to get Al Capone. His character dies in the attempt to bring Capone to justice. With his dying breath, he asks the question "what are you prepared to do?"
One thing that you should not do is to quit. It's the same as dying. We all die anyway, but let the death mean something. To die for nothing makes life meaningless.
The GOP's stance on Christie may well be to give him up. But they are up against the Chicago Machine. They'd better be prepared to do more than just surrender. Otherwise, it may well be curtains for the GOP, and maybe for the rest of us as well.
Yeah, but why support gentrification of the economy which only exacerbates the problem?
In the end, an excuse will be made to just kill off these excess people because the expense is too burdensome.
It's the Death Cult in action. Coming to a town near you soon.
That got me thinking about Captain Caveman. "Cavey" was good with the babes, it seems.
Could this plane have changed the outcome of the war? There is a claim in the video that Hitler was a year away from an atomic bomb and he had a bigger version of this plane that could have delivered the bomb to America. If so, the video claims, it could not have been stopped.
The "scandal" is ridiculous in my opinion. Lane closures on a bridge as a form of retaliation? Ridiculous even if true. The left does far worse and is doing far worse now. How does lane closures on a bridge compare with the IRS scandal and the NSA spying on American citizens? A little perspective could be useful here, but unfortunately the GOP seems to think that being pure as the wind driven snow is important in politics.
Nevertheless, if he is proved to be lying, that could to be fatal to his political ambitions to be President of the United States. For the GOP, it continues to show its weakness in confronting the left. It cannot even bring a lawless regime under control, yet lets a Mickey Mouse complaint like this get the better of them.
The left for its part will have eliminated the most dangerous rival to their ambitions to keep control over the White House for another 4 years. Another victory for the left and another defeat for the so-called "right".
My advice to Christie and GOP? Christie should not resign, but force them to remove him from office. The GOP should stick by him, unless the Dems should want to give up Obama and Hillary. Let the Dems run the spectacle of removing a Governor for a Mickey Mouse infraction while they claim they have the right to spy on Americans and harass the opposition party by abusing government powers.
Barnhardt thinks Christie skates. We'll see.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Whichever direction we are headed, I believe we are nearing very perilous times because “the big lie” that prosperity can be created through the printing press, can no longer be hidden.--- Jay Taylor
Exactly. I heard on a news clip this morning that the real estate market is slumping. It's the part of the economy that thrives on easy money. Money is already pretty easy, but the fact that it is slumping even in an easy money environment shows you something.
Very nice article. As they said, read the whole thing.
What convinced me what this lunch alert video that Dick Morris did. No, it won't make any difference amongst Hillary's followers because either they will never hear any of it, nor believe any of it if they did hear, nor care about it even after hearing it. Some people, however, will care. That's the reason for the spin. Every vote counts and she's got to fool the rubes. That's how you know she's running. She's out there doing her best to fool the rubes. She wouldn't have to do that if she wasn't running.
By the way, the Morris piece was a devastating hit on Hillary. Too bad that "bean bag" Romney couldn't take some advice from Morris, it may have made a difference.
Market pares losses after the "good" news.
This is how I know I am on the right track. Of all the reasons for a rally, this has to be the lamest. Incomes should be rising, not flat. All this means is that consumers are piling up debt again. It's just more bubble economics. Surely that should be obvious even to the most thought challenged.
So automate all low-skilled jobs out of existence. Nice going assholes. Now you have a permanent underclass that is dependent upon government.
The idiocracy is coming!!!
The audience numbers have vanished. I suspect somebody or something is behind this.
You may think this is madness ( assuming you are even reading this ), but this blog had an upward trajectory in audience for 3 years. Now, all of a sudden, it is gone.
I say bullshit. It is totally consistent with the bullshit that I see all around. Nothing but bullshit.
This country is being flooded with bullshit. The bullshitter in chief and all his minions are the chief dumpsters.
Am I claiming this is coming from atop? No, but it is part of the culture that is overtaking DC. If they can try to claim that the IRS has the right to suppress opposition, then the rest falls right into line.
D'Souza certainly opened himself up to this latter line of criticism by mixing the blame-colonialism thesis with his tenuous claim that the President is trying to live out his father's dreams.---Richard Butrick
It's everybody else's fault, especially if you're white.
They sure don't have any qualms about not enforcing the immigration laws, now do they? Nor DOMA before was declared unconstitutional. Oh, you mean it was against the constitution? Only because some guys in robes said so. It seemed to be fine for over a decade. It may have kept Clinton in the White House in the nineties. But not good THESE days for some strange reason.
One hundred years ago, Europe was convulsed by the First World War. What I see now, in this time, is not a war necessarily, but something else may be dying off. Hence the metaphor for the lights going out. Also, not just Europe, but all of the Western world.
In the midst of all that despair is the possibility of a deliverance. Curious to me that nobody seems to notice nor to care.
my curiosity. It is called the Swing. It is an airplane,
and it appears to be powered by a new energy device.
At first, I wasn't interested in how it worked, but whether
or not it actually worked at all. After reading a
bit more about it last night, I learned what is supposed
to be making it work. In despair, I concluded
that nobody is going to believe it.
So, I wondered if I should make a post about something
that is likely to be greeted with skepticism and may
even be rejected despite the fact that it may work.
What do you do about people who refuse to believe the
evidence of their own eyes?
Well, it isn't to that point yet. He hasn't demonstrated that
his plane will even fly. But if it does, will people accept
the truth of it? To me, that would be a very curious scenario
if people saw this thing fly, and then refused to believe
that it is for real.
All I would care about is if it works or not. If nobody
knows why it works, who should care about that? Cavemen
used fire for a million years BC and didn't know what
made fire work. What difference does it make as long
as it works?
A few pictures of the plane from PESN website. He
has a fund raiser going, but it isn't drawing much interest.
He need $1500 to go visit the inventor of the plane and to
check it out. He will report on it, no doubt. So far, he
has raised about a fourth of it.
Think of it. This could be the invention to beat all inventions,
yet few people are interested. Aren't any of you people the
least bit curious?
|An electric generator. A new type of energy if it works.|
|I think the generator is in the nose. As for the motor that drives the propeller, It is behind the cockpit.|
|The propeller and electric motor that drives it. The generator pictured above sends the electricity to the motor that turns the propeller. Pretty standard stuff except that it uses no fuel to make the electricity.|
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Fracking leading recovery, but don't let the left wingers know.
Market action was higher today. Stuff like this contradicts a recession, but doesn't contradict a market crash. There was a market crash in 1987 without a recession. This was anti-paradigm at the time. It could happen, who knows? At any rate, the market won't rise forever. Eventually, it must pause.
The song's meaning is cryptic. So, I went to songmeanings to get some ideas on what it meant. There are a lot of interpretations there.
I think in the end, people will think what they want to think. They will believe what they want to believe. If you tell the truth, will you be believed? What is truth, anyway? People will dispute anything, even stuff that's right in front of their very eyes.
It's a very pretty song, whatever it means.
The rationing of scarcity in capitalistic countries is through the price system. Scarce goods are expensive, abundant goods are cheap. In contrast, a socialist country will ration goods upon whim to who they think needs it the most at any one given time. Even with the contrast, both systems are basically doing the same thing, which is to ration scarce goods. But if goods aren't scarce, both systems are obsolete. They are obsolete because there's no need to ration goods if the goods are abundant beyond measure.
Are we really entering a stage of human history in which goods are that abundant? Maybe. I'm not sure, but there may be a case for such thinking. It may explain why energy advances are being kept under wraps. I believe that energy is the key to radical abundance. If energy was radically abundant, it could drive a series of events that would make most, if not all, goods very, very cheap. Too cheap to market effectively. Therefore, in order to keep the markets operating as they have always operated, an artificial scarcity of energy must be maintained.
This artificial scarcity may have first been demonstrated with the successful suppression of molten-salt reactor technology in the early seventies. Later, when Fleishmann and Pons seemed to have discovered "cold fusion", it was discredited even though in private, there remained a lot of interest that has continued to this very day. Efforts at so-called "green energy" has been directed towards impractical sources of energy, such as solar and wind. No serious effort at created a new energy source has been attempted. Even when there is one, like Polywell Fusion, it is canceled as soon as some success appears to be on the horizon. Other methods of aneutonic fusion, such as Focus Fusion, are shown little support. Instead, government seems to be only interested in massively expensive projects like Tokomak Fusion, which size and scope guarantees that it will be expensive, and thus the price structure can be maintained, for a price structure is necessary in order to ration scarce goods.
So, I propose that this reality of a new age should be embraced, as opposed to being avoided, as is now the case. We may not know where the new age will ultimately take us, but we do know that a system of scarcity of the old age may have lead to what it has always led to --- poverty, misery, and wars.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Or something like that. What struck me was that humans mastered fire a million years ago. Evidence found as reported here that supports this theory.
Looks like political prosecutions are on the rise. Nevertheless, it was unwise to say.
Normally, I don't refer to Stratfor. Awhile back, I noted a leftward bias to it. This time it looks reasonable enough, so I will cite it. However, I don't have the link handy here.
It seems that Bush may have poked a finger into Russia's eye, and that may have caused some trouble with the Russians. It doesn't help to make the Russians suspicious. This East-West suspicion has deep roots going all the way back to the days of the Roman Empire ( by the way, the following is my interpretation, not Stratfor's) .
For example, even though each has Christian traditions, each tradition has evolved differently. In the West, blood was spilled over religious differences. That's a main factor in the development of religious freedom in the United States. But in the East? It seems much more monolithic to me, and has evolved that way culturally too. That's a difference worth noting. So, anything that revives and accentuates these differences is a mistake. Bush seems to have made it by supporting the Orange Revolution. It looked like the US was challenging the Russians in their own backyard.
There's not much way the Russians are going to forgo some type of control over Ukraine. To push this invites trouble. So, I agree with Stratfor in this case.
How a leader reacts to criticism says a lot about him. The Queeg character interpreted it as disloyalty. But in this scene, he asks for constructive help. He doesn't get it. But did he deserve it? We don't know from the movie exactly, but we are given hints that it may have helped.
There's a fine line here. I don't know if the point is being made well enough. Like Queeg, I wonder if it will register. We live in perilous times. But that is always true. Sometimes the perils meet you fact to face and you have to meet them, but how you meet them is the point of the entire movie.
Hey, the use of that term "broad" may seem pejorative to some. But they cry crocodile tears, I suspect.
Barnhardt is really, really tough on anybody who favors working the system. Is she right? Maybe!
But, I have to object. I think that we are obligated to work as best as we can with what we've got. What we've got isn't looking too good at the moment, admittedly. We are obligated to work with what we've got because free will and sin mean nothing if you aren't doing your very best. To me, giving up on the system is like giving up on life itself. It is almost a suicide pact. We have an obligation towards the Constitution, not to our leaders. The Constitution is worth honoring---leaders who try to usurp it or dishonoring and their oaths to it are not. Thus, any criticism of the leadership is just. Any act towards usurping the Constitution and the rule of law is not. It is our duty to defend the Constitution the best we can.
The use of the word "broad" isn't necessarily meant as an insult. For all I know, she may be absolutely right.
But also confirms my opinion that was a sop towards the Dems, and a kick in the shins toward GOP.
If Obama really wants to turn things around, he needs to get to the point. The point is that there aren't enough jobs being created. There are fewer people working today than when he took office. Pointing to a lower unemployment rate simply doesn't have the force behind it that it would if the economy was truly creating jobs at a fast rate.
He also seemed to be taking the position that it is somebody else's fault again, and not his. He does this by larding the speech with a surfeit of words. The excess of words do not fool anybody who is paying attention.
We need less politics and more constructive behavior from this President and his party. This speech looked to me like a justification for a self-righteous attitude that surfaces in the statements from Podesta and Schumer. Political opposition is going to come when politicians play politics---Duh. He can't claim the halo of innocence when he starts behaving politically. This is a very political president and it showed itself from the very start of this speech. Frankly, I got tired of it and stopped reading halfway through. I don't want to read how wonderful he thinks he is and how awful everybody else is for opposing him and his goody-good-goodness. After 5 years of this, it isn't too much to ask for results. We are not getting that.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Now, if you can prove this in a way that is totally free of any way to contradict it, you will have proven it beyond doubt.
The trouble with proving free energy's existence is that such a way has not been found. But it can be found, and I think it through the demonstration of a device that will work continuously without being refueled. A perfect example would be an airplane.
Such a device may be in existence now, including the energy device on an airplane. If an airplane can fly long enough, there can be no other explanation for this except that its power is coming from a new type of energy device. That's the point of the demonstration.
Currently, if a plane flies long enough, it must come down for refueling, or be refueled in mid air. So, I hope that --- the significance of a device that would allow continuous operation without refueling--- should be evident.
What significance that has, I do not know. If I were to guess why this blog won't catch on, it's not because it is wrong, but rather because it is only words. People are required to pay attention to deeds. They can ignore words.
I graduated in 1982 from the University of Houston. I got a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science. It was supposed to be a "good" degree and in a field of rapid growth. Yet that didn't work for me.
It wasn't until years later that I learned that I could have received better training. This may have made a difference, or it may not have. Hard to say, but at the very least, I would have had a better chance.
My impression is that most employers wanted people who could come in to work and begin immediately. My education, as it could be called, was not such. Any company that hired me would have had to have given me time to go through a learning curve until I learned the ropes. I think this fact made it harder for me to succeed than would have been otherwise the case.
The responsibility for getting the best possible training lies with myself, of course. But should I be required to shoulder all the blame? Why should the University of Houston be held blameless for my lack of success? They took my money and led me to believe that this would be adequate for my goals. Do they not have some responsibility for failing to educate me to the extent necessary for success? Why should they be let off the hook?
I think the facilities at the University could have been better. I think they could have had more relevant equipment to study with. When I left there, I wasn't ready.
The rest of the story is this. After failing to find work in what I wanted, I began driving a truck for a living. I've been doing that since. But during that time, I have sought to improve myself the best I could. One thing I looked at was training at a private school. This was quite expensive for me at the time, and although I may have been able to pull it off, I decided not to do it.
Instead I have followed another path, which so far has not been fruitful either. I tried programming and getting my wares published. This failed. When that failed, I tried marketing it myself. That failed too.
I think my ideas had merit, but the execution may have been better.
As mentioned in prior posts, and having had given up on a programming career, I went into stocks. This didn't work out either. I did have some minor successes, but nothing that could raise my standard of living.
There has never been a lack of effort or desire. There just hasn't been any success.
Now we are at the point in the history of this country where opportunities are getting harder to come by. Kids cannot get hired out of school. Is it their fault? How much blame do you give to them and how much blame belongs to the society itself? I think it is a mistake to blame the kids entirely. Some of that responsibility may lie within themselves, but I suspect not all of it.
In my own case, I suspect my own lack of success was due in some part to the inadequate training I got. I think it could be the same for the kids today. For that, I blame the leadership.
For I have seen plenty of evidence elsewhere since I began this blog that the leadership is failing us in many other ways.
We need better leadership, but how do you get it? We still have the power to choose our leaders. But we must choose wisely. But how when the media won't tell the truth? The media is in service to the Democrats. They will not fairly report what is news and is propagandizing us instead.
So, there will be a State of Union speech tonight by the President. One thing I saw yesterday was the proposal to cut corporate tax rates. I am opposed to this. I think it runs counter to our Constitution in that the original Constitution did not allow a tax on individuals. Taxes on individuals should be less, and taxes on corporations should be higher. There used to be an import tax. That should return, and individual rates cut to give relief to individuals. And so on and so forth. Everywhere you see, the individual is being oppressed by the combined powers of the powerful. The corporations and nation states are examples of this.
No doubt the President will want more money for job training. I don't think this is helpful because the problem isn't a lack of money, it is a lack of leadership. He's not providing it. He has had enough time. He has no more excuses to make.
Monday, January 27, 2014
With respect to what Limbaugh was talking about today: that is, that Liberals never raise people up, but tend to knock others down. I think this implies aristocracy. Aristocracy resents bourgeois achievement. Aristocracy doesn't go with meritocracy because competence doesn't always come with birth. You can look through history and see that brilliance isn't necessarily passed through to the next generation. If it were the case, dynasties would last forever, but history shows that they don't.
"An internal White House assessment concludes that President Obama must distance himself from a recalcitrant Congress after being badly damaged last year by legislative failures, a government shutdown and his own missteps…."--- Washington Post quoteWhat happened to Obama's soaring rhetoric that claimed that there wasn't a Red America and a Blue America, but only the United States of America? He said something like that once. What happened to that?
Well, we are getting a Schumer led crushing of the Tea Party, and a President who doesn't seem to mean what he says nor say what he means. If he can't beat 'em, he won't join 'em, nor work with 'em, but crush 'em and go around 'em.
So much for the soaring rhetoric.
It reminds me of a 70's talk show, Donahue, in which a black man ( forgot his name) asserted pretty much the same thing. The audience didn't take that very well, but I wonder how an audience would take that now. Probably today, the audience would applaud.
If there's a problem here, it's lies in the practice of pointing fingers. Leadership isn't pointing fingers. You hear that if you follow professional sports. It is a lesson that can be applied to nations as well. When there's a team that has a number of players pointing fingers at each other, you know that team is in trouble. Well, a nation is like a team. When it gets to the point where whole classes of peoples start pointing fingers at whole classes of people, that nation is in trouble.
White people in this country get the guilt trip routine in order to be manipulated by politicians. They are called upon to redress the harm that they may never have had anything to do with. For example, even if you nor your ancestors ever harmed any black person, you are guilty anyway. Guilt cannot be ascertained this way. It is a manipulation device. Guilt is determined upon a case-by-case basis. But if that way to determine guilt were to be the case, it wouldn't be politically useful.
No, the problem isn't white people per se, it is politicians who exploit guilt for political purposes. Politicians are individuals, so you know who they are. Don't feed the animals. Don't reward politicians that do this. They aren't doing anything constructive to help the nation better itself. Don't fall for the guilt trip and don't lay down the guilt trip.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
What distresses me is that the political conflict between Newspace and the "Old Space" (in lieu of a better term) is hampering progress, Newspace wouldn't take up much room in the budget, but isn't being fully funded because Old Space fears it.
This is what I am getting at with the Basic Concept of Solutions v. Conflict. There is room in space for both new and the old, and there doesn't have to be a conflict, yet there are those out there who are feeding it. For example, the Newspace people keep saying that the SLS is a rocket to nowhere. As I have written, the best use of the SLS is to build infrastructure as opposed to going places. The SLS doesn't have to go anywhere in order to be useful. It can lift heavy equipment and objects that small rockets can't. It can build out the infrastructure that Newspace can utilize. They can be synergistic, but instead, they are fighting each other.
When all the oars a paddling in the same direction, you can get somewhere. With such conflict as this, there cannot be such a scenario, but rather using the paddles to whack each other upside the head. That has to stop.
"Although the tea party’s influence is “undeniable,” it is not inevitable — and it must be crushed for the good of the nation, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued in a long political speech on Thursday...Among other recommendations, Schumer suggested an IRS crackdown on funding for tea party groups"---Chuck Schumer
It's getting really mean out there. Here's the Democrats, who steal elections ( Franken in Minnesota ), take illegal campaign donations ( Obama bypasses rules on credit card donations that allow any nationality to donate to his campaign which is illegal), are now complaining that it is just so doggone unfair that they are losing elections and having their agenda thwarted. Well, the complaints have no sympathy with me. Also, this idea of "crushing" the Tea Party is damned UnAmerican of him. We don't "crush" opposition parties. That's what caused the Watergate Scandal. Schumer and the Democrats are out of control.
How the price of gold has been manipulated.
Great read. Highly recommended. Part 1 here.
Guest Post: The Big Reset, Part 2
When the story first broke that the IRS was harassing Tea Party Groups, it appeared to me as though they were outraged by it. Not anymore.
"The Internal Revenue Service and several lawmakers are beginning to step up their interest in preventing “social welfare” organizations and other tax-sheltered groups from being used as political conduits"---Editorial BoardIs it or is it not illegal to use the IRS to harass the political opposition? It was my understanding that it was freaking illegal.
What the f&*k is going on here?
Things are getting mean.
"Do Americans eventually wake up to what has happened to their country and the enormous fraud that controls all markets?"---By Dr. Jeff Lewis
An article generally supportive of my point of view that we could be in the midst of a huge market selloff. Maybe not right now, as I think could be the case, but eventually. Whatever the case may be, the current policy is unsustainable.
"The bottom line... fuel cells will be in our future sooner than many people believe, and in much greater numbers than anyone expected."---Bob Carter, Senior Vice President, Automotive Operations, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
The prices look a bit high, though. Between the Tesla and this model, there may not be that much difference.
Looking in the comment sections, people have very strong opinions on the subject. I've already expressed my opinions on batteries here. Batteries are always going to be too heavy. Heavy masses do not go well with kinetic energy, which is what you are producing when you are driving down the road.
There's a project he's trying to crowdfund over there and I contributed to it. Unfortunately, an appeal here isn't going to reach many people because I think I'm being frozen out. My pageviews are way, way down. I don't think this is an accident.
Anyway, I contributed to it. If you want to help pay for his trip to go look at a free energy device that powers an airplane and a car, here's your chance. You see, this is a big deal if the thing is for real. How do you fake flying a plane on a phony energy device? If it stays up longer than it is supposed to with conventional fuel, isn't that news? Isn't that an amazing development? I would certainly like to see whatever they got going over there.
Unfortunately, even if I pushed this, nobody will see it.
Whatever. You do what you can do.
So what have I done which is so doggone objectionable? Telling the truth as I see it? I've been doing that all along. Nothing has changed here.
The only thing I can figure is that I may be making some important people very nervous.
Look, the way I see it is that the powers-that-be have been conspiring against the interests of the majority. They seek to be served as opposed to serving. If this becomes threatened, they may get nasty about it.
That could be about to happen if I am right about the coming market collapse. If I am wrong, who gives a poop? It won't matter.
Frankly, I don't get it. If you want to avoid becoming roadkill, just step out of the way. That's kinda what I've been trying to propose here with solutions that will work. Are the powers-that-be so interested in control that they don't care if a thing works or not?
If they lose control, they may get downright mean.
The significance is the technology that will soon convert natural gas into ethylene. Ethylene is an important feedstock for many petrochemical products. Amongst these are ethanol. Yes, what this means is that natural gas could soon be converted to liquid fuels and this will be big news at the gas pump at some future date. Many cars and vehicles being built are flex fuel now and can take 85% ethanol blend or lower.
It may not show up in gasoline prices yet, because at first, there won't be that much supply. But once it gets rolling, it will exert a downward force on prices at the pump.
As a result of this finding, I will update the post on Energy Sources That I Like.