This is a day for thought.
I have a little notebook, where I keep, ahem, notes. The notes were fairly disorganized, so I made a little table of contents, put in some page numbers, and voila, the thing is almost like a book.
That's one thing I did today. There are others.
This is giving me some confidence. So much confidence that I may be getting a bit cocky. My experience tells me that overconfidence is a signpost for trouble ahead.
One can get carried away sometimes.
On the larger scene, I note this as well: people do not like to hear negatives. So, they see negatives here on this blog, and they go away. That's pretty dumb. If all you want to hear is what you already think you know, then you learn nothing new. You become an idget.
A little constructive criticism never hurt anybody. But "snowflakes" will never listen, and so they will never learn. They will be snowflakes forever, or until they learn to do better. Snowflakes inhabit places like Venezuela, whose people must not have read their history books, and therefore elected a leftist who subsequently destroyed their country.
If you won't listen and pay attention, you will pay the piper.
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, March 9, 2019
Friday, March 8, 2019
AGW post 111, 3.8.19
Language is all important. Therefore, if you wish to influence the discussion, then control the use of language. After all, isn't that what the lefties do?
So-called conservatives all too often use the words that the left invents, like "renewables". Another example ( this is just one of many ) is the use of this word in reference to so-called "green" energy policies.
Renewables mean things like solar and wind, or maybe biomass as well. However, there is no such thing as renewables, as all good things come to an end at some point. The sun will use up its hydrogen fuel far off in the future. It may be a few billion years, but it will run out of fuel the same way that "artificial" energy sources do. Therefore, any energy coming from the sun is not technically "renewable". It just gets used up at a slower pace. Nuclear energy gets used up slowly, so why not use that? But it is not renewable, they'll say.
Geothermal is also called renewable, but it is based upon volcanic activity, which in turn is based upon radioactivity deep within the Earth. It is no more "renewable" than the sun, no more renewable than artificial energy derived from nuclear power.
So, let's clean up this language a bit. What the greenies are really talking about is man made energy sources based upon technology, versus non technology sources.
The left controls the discussion when they use the term "renewable", so why should the so-called conservatives cede that ground to them? But they do. That is why they lose.
So-called conservatives all too often use the words that the left invents, like "renewables". Another example ( this is just one of many ) is the use of this word in reference to so-called "green" energy policies.
Renewables mean things like solar and wind, or maybe biomass as well. However, there is no such thing as renewables, as all good things come to an end at some point. The sun will use up its hydrogen fuel far off in the future. It may be a few billion years, but it will run out of fuel the same way that "artificial" energy sources do. Therefore, any energy coming from the sun is not technically "renewable". It just gets used up at a slower pace. Nuclear energy gets used up slowly, so why not use that? But it is not renewable, they'll say.
Geothermal is also called renewable, but it is based upon volcanic activity, which in turn is based upon radioactivity deep within the Earth. It is no more "renewable" than the sun, no more renewable than artificial energy derived from nuclear power.
So, let's clean up this language a bit. What the greenies are really talking about is man made energy sources based upon technology, versus non technology sources.
The left controls the discussion when they use the term "renewable", so why should the so-called conservatives cede that ground to them? But they do. That is why they lose.
Thursday, March 7, 2019
Another argument against National Popular Vote Compact
The argument against the compact is that it disenfranchises voters. I would agree. Why hold a vote, and then not honor it? Seems like a capricious thing to me. It is unenforceable, because no state can sue another state for how it sets up its electoral votes.
A state can do what it likes as long as it is consistent with the law before and after the election.
If they want to hand their electoral votes to a Democrat, then let their respective legislatures decide this before the election is held. If this is done, then they are just pretending to have an election, and pretending to let the voters decide. Would voters even show up if it didn't matter how they voted?
One way to have an interstate compact is to get Congress to go along. Not likely. This could only happen if there is a big majority in the Senate, and one party holds both houses and the Presidency.
In practice, this compact will invite a controversy. Wouldn't surprise me if it ended up in the House of Representatives, and the Vice Presidency will end up in the Senate. It will make the election of 2000 seem tame in comparison.
Weird outcomes could prevail. If the House cannot choose the POTUS, then the Senate just might. Here's how: The 12th Amendment reworked the method of electing the POTUS. If the House cannot get a majority, then the Vice President will be President. So, if the Senate can come up with a new vice President, then that person will be elevated to President. Also, each state delegation has only one vote apiece. That means a majority of delegations wins the presidency. In other words, you can control the House in numbers, but in the number of state delegations, you could be a minority. The Democrats could put themselves in a position where they would still lose the election even with this compact. That's because at present, they may control only a minority of delegations.
A state can do what it likes as long as it is consistent with the law before and after the election.
If they want to hand their electoral votes to a Democrat, then let their respective legislatures decide this before the election is held. If this is done, then they are just pretending to have an election, and pretending to let the voters decide. Would voters even show up if it didn't matter how they voted?
One way to have an interstate compact is to get Congress to go along. Not likely. This could only happen if there is a big majority in the Senate, and one party holds both houses and the Presidency.
In practice, this compact will invite a controversy. Wouldn't surprise me if it ended up in the House of Representatives, and the Vice Presidency will end up in the Senate. It will make the election of 2000 seem tame in comparison.
Weird outcomes could prevail. If the House cannot choose the POTUS, then the Senate just might. Here's how: The 12th Amendment reworked the method of electing the POTUS. If the House cannot get a majority, then the Vice President will be President. So, if the Senate can come up with a new vice President, then that person will be elevated to President. Also, each state delegation has only one vote apiece. That means a majority of delegations wins the presidency. In other words, you can control the House in numbers, but in the number of state delegations, you could be a minority. The Democrats could put themselves in a position where they would still lose the election even with this compact. That's because at present, they may control only a minority of delegations.
Animal hijinks
A little humor to lighten up the scene. Things may be getting a little deep around here.
She would be a great asset
That business about AOC makes me smile a little. She is such a believer in this left wing bravo sierra.
I'm going to make fun of her a little, and compare her to Luke Skywalker. She will overcome the Evil Empire! ( meaning us, of course )
But "Lord Vader" will turn her to the Dark Side. Bwah, hah, hah!
I'm going to make fun of her a little, and compare her to Luke Skywalker. She will overcome the Evil Empire! ( meaning us, of course )
But "Lord Vader" will turn her to the Dark Side. Bwah, hah, hah!
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
AOC is one strange person ( bicho raro )
Note: Bicho raro may mean "strange beast" in Spanish. Google translate says "rare bug". In Hemingway's For Whom The Bell Tolls, it seemed more like "rare beast" -- an insult.
Now she is saying that there should have been no retaliation for the 9-11 attacks.
Uh-huh.
Actually, given how freaking strange the so-called blue states are becoming, AOC may have a point. Before all of you so-called "conservatives" go apeshit, let me explain.
Isn't the reaction to 9-11 a defensive reaction to an attack on our country? But what if that country no longer exists? How can it exist when she talks like this, with no consequences? Does this mean that she condones the attack? One would presume that she would not condone the attack unless she was in sympathy with the enemy. So, why are we defending the likes of people who would elect this traitor?
Frankly, I always had some extreme doubts about the left when it came to the 9-11 attacks. What AOC is doing is expressing why my doubts were justified. What AOC should be doing is hiding her contempt for this country, the way most of her party has been doing all along. So, now she is being clear about it.
I didn't really expect that the left was really loyal to this country, and that is why the terrorists attacked on 9-11. Clinton really didn't do enough to stop OBL while he was POTUS. He could have disposed of OBL when Sudan offered to give him up. So, it is quite evident that these people are not loyal to this country. This latest business with AOC only goes to show you that this is quite justified.
But the Dems won't give her up. The Dems are in bed with the leftists, who are trying to destroy this country.
It ought to be be clear. But is AOC really in such a strong position that she can really drop the mask, and show them for what they really are? She is really rather foolish.
Now she is saying that there should have been no retaliation for the 9-11 attacks.
Uh-huh.
Actually, given how freaking strange the so-called blue states are becoming, AOC may have a point. Before all of you so-called "conservatives" go apeshit, let me explain.
Isn't the reaction to 9-11 a defensive reaction to an attack on our country? But what if that country no longer exists? How can it exist when she talks like this, with no consequences? Does this mean that she condones the attack? One would presume that she would not condone the attack unless she was in sympathy with the enemy. So, why are we defending the likes of people who would elect this traitor?
Frankly, I always had some extreme doubts about the left when it came to the 9-11 attacks. What AOC is doing is expressing why my doubts were justified. What AOC should be doing is hiding her contempt for this country, the way most of her party has been doing all along. So, now she is being clear about it.
I didn't really expect that the left was really loyal to this country, and that is why the terrorists attacked on 9-11. Clinton really didn't do enough to stop OBL while he was POTUS. He could have disposed of OBL when Sudan offered to give him up. So, it is quite evident that these people are not loyal to this country. This latest business with AOC only goes to show you that this is quite justified.
But the Dems won't give her up. The Dems are in bed with the leftists, who are trying to destroy this country.
It ought to be be clear. But is AOC really in such a strong position that she can really drop the mask, and show them for what they really are? She is really rather foolish.
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
To those who don't think it is worth fighting against anymore...
Supposedly, there is a former climate skeptic that doesn't want to fight it anymore...
Just to let everybody know... I am not arguing from ignorance on this subject. I've studied energy for years. This "green" stuff doesn't work. If it could be made to work on economic grounds, it would be an easy sale. But that is what is wrong with it. I am now inclined to believe that the "green" theories were designed for sabotage, and therefore can never work.
If you cannot fight against something as ruinous as this is, you need to get out of the business. Joining the other side is worse than doing nothing. Go home if you can't take it anymore. You are doing more harm than good.
Just to let everybody know... I am not arguing from ignorance on this subject. I've studied energy for years. This "green" stuff doesn't work. If it could be made to work on economic grounds, it would be an easy sale. But that is what is wrong with it. I am now inclined to believe that the "green" theories were designed for sabotage, and therefore can never work.
If you cannot fight against something as ruinous as this is, you need to get out of the business. Joining the other side is worse than doing nothing. Go home if you can't take it anymore. You are doing more harm than good.
Going on strike against what???
Comment:
They have bought in this global warming scam so much, that they won't have children.
You cannot "wear out" or "use up" an atom. Waste is a matter of energy shortage. Produce enough energy, and you can recycle ... every. damn. thing. You can make drop in fuels, too. Perhaps it makes little economic sense to do that, but you could.
There is no need for this "baby strike".
It is a shame.
Lunatic Brits decide not to have children due to fear of climate change: “There’s no other fix in this world of conservation” - https://t.co/I4iPCB8uja— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) March 5, 2019
Truth works in mysterious ways
There seems to be a controversy regarding the tennis legend Martina Navrotolova. Before I dug into this controversy, I recalled that she was lesbian, looked it up, and confirmed it. She has been openly homosexual for quite some time. The controversy is between her and this community of homosexuals, who are quite "fanatical" according to some. The fanaticism will become evident--- read on.
It seems that she opposes so-called transgenders in sports, accusing them of being unfair. The community will not tolerate this. Hence, the fanaticism.
Indeed, it is unfair. As I noted in a previous post, the female pelvis is different from the male pelvis. This is the reason that women cannot run as fast as men. That's true because the so-called transgenders aren't women, they are men.
If you doubt this, then look it up. I think this is so obvious that it doesn't require much thinking to verify as being correct, nor much searching for evidence. Either you support the truth, or you don't. It is fair, to call people who will not recognize obvious truth, as being fanatics.
Therefore, Martina N. is right. ( I have a little trouble spelling the name, so I used the initial "N" only. ) Males masquerading as females should not be allowed to compete against real women. It is indeed unfair.
Too bad the truth only goes so far with Martina. But this is enough to show that even debilitated people can at least see some truth.
It seems that she opposes so-called transgenders in sports, accusing them of being unfair. The community will not tolerate this. Hence, the fanaticism.
Indeed, it is unfair. As I noted in a previous post, the female pelvis is different from the male pelvis. This is the reason that women cannot run as fast as men. That's true because the so-called transgenders aren't women, they are men.
If you doubt this, then look it up. I think this is so obvious that it doesn't require much thinking to verify as being correct, nor much searching for evidence. Either you support the truth, or you don't. It is fair, to call people who will not recognize obvious truth, as being fanatics.
Therefore, Martina N. is right. ( I have a little trouble spelling the name, so I used the initial "N" only. ) Males masquerading as females should not be allowed to compete against real women. It is indeed unfair.
Too bad the truth only goes so far with Martina. But this is enough to show that even debilitated people can at least see some truth.
Biomass: Another "Green" Fraud
This article has a quote that I agree with, that is why I think it is brilliant. ( yuk, yuk )
Quote:
Yep. With all this progress given to us by our good 'ol progressive "friends", we should all be living in caves. Or maybe in a "home" tree, like the mythical Na'vi in the movie Avatar.
Elephants can really fly too, and mountains can float. Just like the movie. /sarc
Quote:
This discussion of biomass reminds me of how retrograde “green” technologies are. Wood burning? Yeah, that was a great idea in 1000 AD. Wind energy? It works intermittently, at a low level. When I was growing up in South Dakota, every farm had a windmill. They were used mostly to drive pumps for wells, I believe.
Yep. With all this progress given to us by our good 'ol progressive "friends", we should all be living in caves. Or maybe in a "home" tree, like the mythical Na'vi in the movie Avatar.
Elephants can really fly too, and mountains can float. Just like the movie. /sarc
Biomass: Another "Green" Fraud https://t.co/41IdmTpio9 via @powerlineUS— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) March 5, 2019
Obligatory, 3.5.19
"Truth is a slippery thing." One of my favorite sayings. When it comes to truth, how do you know it when you see it?
With respect to the ongoing investigations in DC, there can be no doubt of one thing, and that is that somebody is lying.
Aside from that, you cannot be 100% sure of much else.
The way I am going to figure it may not be the way others would. Extrapolating that out from the particular to the general, there will be, in general, disagreement over who is the liar, and who is telling the truth. Unfortunately, that is what the liar is going to count on. The liar depends upon chaos and uncertainty in order to perpetrate his lies.
It is hard to get 100% certainty. The truth is a slippery thing.
With respect to the ongoing investigations in DC, there can be no doubt of one thing, and that is that somebody is lying.
Aside from that, you cannot be 100% sure of much else.
The way I am going to figure it may not be the way others would. Extrapolating that out from the particular to the general, there will be, in general, disagreement over who is the liar, and who is telling the truth. Unfortunately, that is what the liar is going to count on. The liar depends upon chaos and uncertainty in order to perpetrate his lies.
It is hard to get 100% certainty. The truth is a slippery thing.
Monday, March 4, 2019
What a hybrid civil war would look like
From what I could gather, the war wouldn't even be a war.
What's with people these days?
Evidently, everybody seems to have swallowed a "stupid" pill. ( aka "higher" education)
What's with people these days?
Evidently, everybody seems to have swallowed a "stupid" pill. ( aka "higher" education)
Rand Paul will vote with Democrats
People have short memories, so they may forget things that they should remember. Sundance reminds us that the DACA business was started with an Emergency declaration from the 'Bamster himself.
So, if Paul is so concerned about this, why isn't THAT Emergency Declaration being reviewed? Or has it? Is it still in effect? Seems to me that it must be, since DACA is still something of a controversy.
Just shows to go ya that these people are definitely full of used food.
Rand Paul Announces He Will Vote With Democrats Against President on Border Emergency Declaration... https://t.co/jS2YMphZqJ via @thelastrefuge2— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) March 4, 2019
An argument against fluid genderism
Wow. What a title. Who'd a thunk it way back when? If you went back to when I was a kid, an argument like this might well have received a guffaw or two.
Anyway, these days, we have to belabor what should be obvious. ( btw, as you will read, this isn't intended as a pun) Boys aren't girls, and vice versa. But that isn't enough to stop 'em these days.
So, here's a link to a pic, which describes the whys and wherefores of human anatomy--- male v. female pelvis.
There are so many other examples, but for any reasonable person, who should have any doubts, there isn't any way to change this, as you should well know.
But that is not likely to stop these people.
Anyway, these days, we have to belabor what should be obvious. ( btw, as you will read, this isn't intended as a pun) Boys aren't girls, and vice versa. But that isn't enough to stop 'em these days.
So, here's a link to a pic, which describes the whys and wherefores of human anatomy--- male v. female pelvis.
There are so many other examples, but for any reasonable person, who should have any doubts, there isn't any way to change this, as you should well know.
But that is not likely to stop these people.
Sunday, March 3, 2019
Synthetic Fuel from Seawater: The Science
Reposted on ,
3.3.19:
The point of this video, is that you can make fuels from seawater in order to power aircraft in war zones. This may be economical in that application. However, it may not be economical elsewhere, such as every day life.
It is economical in war zones because of a war zone's remote location, and lack of transportation infrastructure. Long supply lines are EXPENSIVE. Hence, the idea is to shorten the supply lines, and make it more economical to operate in a war zone--- get it?
Now, the Greenies want us to operate the economy as if the whole world is in a war zone. Naturally, this does not make much sense, and may well be entirely unnecessary.
Nevertheless, these turkeys believe it. One of these days, this solution here may be considered the best of a bad lot. Assuming of course, that we are allowed even this.
( I think $25 a gallon is a target price for this concept to make sense in a war zone. I posted this to give you an idea of the insanity of the so-called Green New Deal. )
10.30.13:
Comment:
One of the fuels mentioned was methane. This seems interesting to me because methane can be used very efficiently. It can be used in a fuel cell or in a turbine. Perhaps the CO2 can be recaptured and recycled as well.
3.3.19:
The point of this video, is that you can make fuels from seawater in order to power aircraft in war zones. This may be economical in that application. However, it may not be economical elsewhere, such as every day life.
It is economical in war zones because of a war zone's remote location, and lack of transportation infrastructure. Long supply lines are EXPENSIVE. Hence, the idea is to shorten the supply lines, and make it more economical to operate in a war zone--- get it?
Now, the Greenies want us to operate the economy as if the whole world is in a war zone. Naturally, this does not make much sense, and may well be entirely unnecessary.
Nevertheless, these turkeys believe it. One of these days, this solution here may be considered the best of a bad lot. Assuming of course, that we are allowed even this.
( I think $25 a gallon is a target price for this concept to make sense in a war zone. I posted this to give you an idea of the insanity of the so-called Green New Deal. )
10.30.13:
Comment:
One of the fuels mentioned was methane. This seems interesting to me because methane can be used very efficiently. It can be used in a fuel cell or in a turbine. Perhaps the CO2 can be recaptured and recycled as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)