Comment:
He says the red side would win. Maybe, but if that were so, what have they been waiting for?
There is no will to fight, and until there is, they'd better think up another way and soon.
For if the reds get overtaken by events, their advantages will disappear.
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, June 22, 2019
News must be slow
... but at least this is out there, and it tickled my funny bone.
There was something else I was gonna say about it, but I thought nope! Anyway, it reminds me of this...
The thing that made me laugh is that people are full of shit. It would be something if anybody could be straight about anything.
There was something else I was gonna say about it, but I thought nope! Anyway, it reminds me of this...
The thing that made me laugh is that people are full of shit. It would be something if anybody could be straight about anything.
Friday, June 21, 2019
What's really going on with Iran
Updated,
noon:
This may not be what Trump does, but he can ask for some help from Oman and the UAE. He could ask for landing and servicing rights there. If by any chance that this was already in existence, then nothing more than adjusting the flight paths a bit is all that is necessary in order to keep the status quo.
Perhaps the status quo is not acceptable. That's the rub. However, I think that adjusting flight paths can be done while denying Iran what they want. Any further aggression will be seen for what it is.
11:34 am:
Rather chilling analysis here. However, I think what is missing is the actual capacities of the US military.
For instance, the writer said that the drone was knocked down by a 70-80's era missile. Maybe so, but it was an unarmed and undefended drone. The writer is making a comparison that a propagandist would make.
I have been researching some stuff to see what the options are. All options short of war, that is.
There is some talk about doing a re-flagging of tankers and escort operations. However, that would be too risky at this time. This isn't the eighties. The Iranians have upgraded their military assets.
Future drone activity could restrict the operation nearby friendly zones, should there be any. I'm thinking that there are. These drones can scan long distances. The loss of such drones in the future could be minimized or even eliminated, I would guess, while keeping up with their mission as before. No change in status on that count.
No one can convince me that the Iranians really have the military advantage here. The analysis above relies a bit too much on political considerations. Politics won't play much of a role in a short-term conflict. The usual conventional approach should be one-sided. The unpredictable part would be what Iran may do elsewhere.
9:44 am:
Comment:
Seems to be saying that Iran wants to make Trump a one-term president, like Jimmy Carter. What is the likelihood of a significant military operation?
If there were a war, with significant casualties, you know what the Democrat response will be.
This limits the options. I'd say the long-term prognostication is for war. But I have thought that for a long time, and there has been no war.
noon:
This may not be what Trump does, but he can ask for some help from Oman and the UAE. He could ask for landing and servicing rights there. If by any chance that this was already in existence, then nothing more than adjusting the flight paths a bit is all that is necessary in order to keep the status quo.
Perhaps the status quo is not acceptable. That's the rub. However, I think that adjusting flight paths can be done while denying Iran what they want. Any further aggression will be seen for what it is.
11:34 am:
Rather chilling analysis here. However, I think what is missing is the actual capacities of the US military.
For instance, the writer said that the drone was knocked down by a 70-80's era missile. Maybe so, but it was an unarmed and undefended drone. The writer is making a comparison that a propagandist would make.
I have been researching some stuff to see what the options are. All options short of war, that is.
There is some talk about doing a re-flagging of tankers and escort operations. However, that would be too risky at this time. This isn't the eighties. The Iranians have upgraded their military assets.
Future drone activity could restrict the operation nearby friendly zones, should there be any. I'm thinking that there are. These drones can scan long distances. The loss of such drones in the future could be minimized or even eliminated, I would guess, while keeping up with their mission as before. No change in status on that count.
No one can convince me that the Iranians really have the military advantage here. The analysis above relies a bit too much on political considerations. Politics won't play much of a role in a short-term conflict. The usual conventional approach should be one-sided. The unpredictable part would be what Iran may do elsewhere.
9:44 am:
Comment:
Seems to be saying that Iran wants to make Trump a one-term president, like Jimmy Carter. What is the likelihood of a significant military operation?
If there were a war, with significant casualties, you know what the Democrat response will be.
This limits the options. I'd say the long-term prognostication is for war. But I have thought that for a long time, and there has been no war.
— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) June 21, 2019
Scope Memos
Comment:
Was the third scope memo a reference to the Roger Stone case, as is now unfolding?
Roger Stone was mentioned in this video. It seems to me that the whole Russian collusion scenario revolves around two major premises.
If the third scope memo involves Roger Stone, there is a real chance that Stone's prosecution could blow up the whole shaky scheme to oust the POTUS. Hence, they got to keep Stone quiet. Even if they do silence Stone, others can talk about it. That's what happened here in this interview. Other people are talking about it.
Was the third scope memo a reference to the Roger Stone case, as is now unfolding?
Roger Stone was mentioned in this video. It seems to me that the whole Russian collusion scenario revolves around two major premises.
- The alleged email hacks. Even the PappaDop setup revolves around this.
- The Steele Dossier.
If both of these are completely discredited, what does the collusion scenario rest upon at that point? According to the Mueller Report, there isn't a whole lot left but a very minor counter intel investigation, which would appear to be routine at best.
If the third scope memo involves Roger Stone, there is a real chance that Stone's prosecution could blow up the whole shaky scheme to oust the POTUS. Hence, they got to keep Stone quiet. Even if they do silence Stone, others can talk about it. That's what happened here in this interview. Other people are talking about it.
Stone may be placed into custody
Comment:
It seems that the publicity surrounding Stone's case is causing the government to worry about itsrailroading prosecution. Imagine being put into jail for having a conversation ( by email ) with someone in another country. Of course, you cannot lie about that to Congress, unless you are a Democrat.
It seems that the publicity surrounding Stone's case is causing the government to worry about its
The DOJ is putting the screws to Roger Stone for these IG/FB posts.— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) June 20, 2019
Expect the Judge to modify the conditions of his release. Stone may be placed into custody.
Full DOJ motion here:https://t.co/2r5w8O8xhA pic.twitter.com/qO6jYsoJpE
Thursday, June 20, 2019
The Hill: FBI, warned early and often that Manafort file might be fake, used it anyway
Updated,
6.20.19:
It looks worse than suspicious. It looks like an outright fraud. Mueller's chief lieutenant, one Andrew Weissmann, has some 'splaining to do. If there is any justice, this guy should be in jail.
6.19.19:
Comment:
The FBI used fake evidence to reopen Manafort case. The way it was used as probable cause really looks suspect.
6.20.19:
It looks worse than suspicious. It looks like an outright fraud. Mueller's chief lieutenant, one Andrew Weissmann, has some 'splaining to do. If there is any justice, this guy should be in jail.
6.19.19:
Comment:
The FBI used fake evidence to reopen Manafort case. The way it was used as probable cause really looks suspect.
FBI, warned early and often that Manafort file might be fake, used it anyway https://t.co/OezbG8ZVeM— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) June 19, 2019
What is Iran up to?
Comment:
I read about this earlier, but this information was a bit more serious than what I read. Evidently, this is a sophisticated surveillance aircraft, and the fact that Iran shot it down indicates that something serious is in the works.
A theory : Iran may attempt to shut down the Gulf. If that happens, it may be quite disruptive to the world economy.
I read about this earlier, but this information was a bit more serious than what I read. Evidently, this is a sophisticated surveillance aircraft, and the fact that Iran shot it down indicates that something serious is in the works.
A theory : Iran may attempt to shut down the Gulf. If that happens, it may be quite disruptive to the world economy.
Iran Shoots Down $123 Million U.S. Unmanned Aircraft - President Trump: "Iran Made A Very Big Mistake"... https://t.co/smXtmI2KRs via @thelastrefuge2— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) June 20, 2019
Spygate: Inside Story
Comment:
This is a long read.
Interesting to note that Comey testified a week before he was fired that there was no pressure to end the collusion investigation. There was no obstruction at that point, according to Comey. McCabe took over the FBI, and also reported the same thing in testimony the following week. Yet, it was said that McCabe opened an obstruction investigation after Comey was fired. Doesn't add up.
Strzok didn't think there was any big thing there with respect to collusion. This was about that time. Strzok was on the Mueller team for awhile before being booted off of it.
Baker was racing the Admiral Rogers report on FISA 702 about queries noncompliance. This was so that there would be no trouble getting the FISA warrant on Carter Page. If he had mentioned an investigation of these issues, it may have made a difference to the court in granting the FISA warrant.
An impeachment trial in the Senate would face a lot of very strong headwinds for conviction. Indeed, it would look really bad for impeachment advocates.
This is a long read.
Interesting to note that Comey testified a week before he was fired that there was no pressure to end the collusion investigation. There was no obstruction at that point, according to Comey. McCabe took over the FBI, and also reported the same thing in testimony the following week. Yet, it was said that McCabe opened an obstruction investigation after Comey was fired. Doesn't add up.
Strzok didn't think there was any big thing there with respect to collusion. This was about that time. Strzok was on the Mueller team for awhile before being booted off of it.
Baker was racing the Admiral Rogers report on FISA 702 about queries noncompliance. This was so that there would be no trouble getting the FISA warrant on Carter Page. If he had mentioned an investigation of these issues, it may have made a difference to the court in granting the FISA warrant.
An impeachment trial in the Senate would face a lot of very strong headwinds for conviction. Indeed, it would look really bad for impeachment advocates.
1) Spygate: The Inside Story Behind the Alleged Plot to Take Down Trump— Jeff Carlson (@themarketswork) March 28, 2019
New Article @EpochTimes with infographics.https://t.co/sNEgxvLA3P
Wednesday, June 19, 2019
Something familiar about all this...
Updated,
6.19.19:
Stone's defense is relying upon the predicate for the Russian collusion case, which would be the so-called hacked emails.
The government's position is "evidence" "what evidence"? We don't need to show you any evidence!
Reminds of the way a gangster thinks.
6.16.19:
If Stone is successful with his defense, it will be devastating to the left. That's because it will show them up for what they are---traitors. However, he's going up against what will likely be a kangaroo court in a hopelessly corrupt jurisdiction.
3:38 pm:
This has a Star Chamber quality about it. We have a Separation of Powers doctrine that limits what each branch of government can do. With respect to Stone, why was he even appearing before Congress? Stone is a private citizen. If he broke any laws, isn't that the duty of police and prosecutors to investigate?
The irony of all this is that eventually, Stone may be convicted of doing nothing but lie to Congress about doing what he has a right to do. Of course, why would Stone lie about something that he has a right to do? It doesn't matter much to me, the point is why is he even there to begin with?
12:35 pm:
Holy moly! I just realized that Julian Assange could be called as a witness in this case. It alleges in US v. Stone that Assange and Stone had contacts. This case could very well involve the claim of hacked emails, so the source of the emails ( hack or leak ) is quite pertinent to the defense!
12:15 pm:
Useful tweet to show the background of what is happening. Roger Stone's defense against an indictment, I suspect.
9:30 am:
Yes, the actual evidence shows that it was a leak, not a hack. But the media ignores it, of course.
7:30 am:
Even worse than I thought. It really is deja vu all over again.
9.14.18:
It's like deja vu all over again.
Dianne Feinstein Sends Letter To FBI Accusing Brett Kavanaugh Of Nothing [VIDEO]
It's just like what they have been doing to Trump. After two years of this Russian collusion business, they have no crime.
Manafort doesn't count because that was BEFORE Trump was even a candidate.
Pappa-dopp may have been set up over "stolen" emails that weren't even stolen. The Crowdstrike finding was hearsay, but the FBI treated it as evidence.
Flynn didn't lie. A confession was coerced.
Are we awake yet??
6.19.19:
Stone's defense is relying upon the predicate for the Russian collusion case, which would be the so-called hacked emails.
The government's position is "evidence" "what evidence"? We don't need to show you any evidence!
Reminds of the way a gangster thinks.
6.16.19:
If Stone is successful with his defense, it will be devastating to the left. That's because it will show them up for what they are---traitors. However, he's going up against what will likely be a kangaroo court in a hopelessly corrupt jurisdiction.
6.15.19:Stone defense team exposes the 'intelligence community's' betrayal of their responsibilities https://t.co/CizsJ7hPFq— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) June 16, 2019
3:38 pm:
This has a Star Chamber quality about it. We have a Separation of Powers doctrine that limits what each branch of government can do. With respect to Stone, why was he even appearing before Congress? Stone is a private citizen. If he broke any laws, isn't that the duty of police and prosecutors to investigate?
The irony of all this is that eventually, Stone may be convicted of doing nothing but lie to Congress about doing what he has a right to do. Of course, why would Stone lie about something that he has a right to do? It doesn't matter much to me, the point is why is he even there to begin with?
12:35 pm:
Holy moly! I just realized that Julian Assange could be called as a witness in this case. It alleges in US v. Stone that Assange and Stone had contacts. This case could very well involve the claim of hacked emails, so the source of the emails ( hack or leak ) is quite pertinent to the defense!
12:15 pm:
Useful tweet to show the background of what is happening. Roger Stone's defense against an indictment, I suspect.
"Suspecting they could prove the Russian hacking claim was false, lawyers representing Roger Stone requested the full Crowdstrike report on the DNC hack"— Wyatt (@SayWhenLA) June 15, 2019
Damn, this is coming from Roger Stone's very recent motion. Things starting to move quickly now I hope.
9:30 am:
Yes, the actual evidence shows that it was a leak, not a hack. But the media ignores it, of course.
This little nugget........Totally disregarded and swept under the rug. https://t.co/4MvbVhYvEF— KevinRearick (@KevinRearick) June 15, 2019
7:30 am:
Even worse than I thought. It really is deja vu all over again.
DOJ Admits FBI Never Saw Crowdstrike Report on DNC Russian Hacking Claim... https://t.co/OIBVNOGe4Y via @thelastrefuge2— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) June 15, 2019
9.14.18:
It's like deja vu all over again.
Dianne Feinstein Sends Letter To FBI Accusing Brett Kavanaugh Of Nothing [VIDEO]
It's just like what they have been doing to Trump. After two years of this Russian collusion business, they have no crime.
Manafort doesn't count because that was BEFORE Trump was even a candidate.
Pappa-dopp may have been set up over "stolen" emails that weren't even stolen. The Crowdstrike finding was hearsay, but the FBI treated it as evidence.
Flynn didn't lie. A confession was coerced.
Are we awake yet??
Indict McCabe
Comment:
Pretty lame reasoning from McCabe. He say contracting a company that uses foreign sources is okay, but what Trump said to Stephanopolous is not okay.
By the same reasoning, he could justify hiring a hitman to take out the Donald. Since he didn't pull the trigger, he's not liable for criminal prosecution. Yeah, let's see how that flies. Maybe in DC, but not anywhere that's still sane.
Pretty lame reasoning from McCabe. He say contracting a company that uses foreign sources is okay, but what Trump said to Stephanopolous is not okay.
By the same reasoning, he could justify hiring a hitman to take out the Donald. Since he didn't pull the trigger, he's not liable for criminal prosecution. Yeah, let's see how that flies. Maybe in DC, but not anywhere that's still sane.
Time to Indict McCabe, Not Impeach Trump https://t.co/WYt8MNv82g— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) June 19, 2019
Truth is relative to person and place according to post modernism
Comment:
Water is wet. Journalists are overwhelmingly Democrat. What's true is true.
Media is partisan Democrat. Yet, you'll see the claim that they aren't. Only if you live in Alice's Wonderland.
Water is wet. Journalists are overwhelmingly Democrat. What's true is true.
Media is partisan Democrat. Yet, you'll see the claim that they aren't. Only if you live in Alice's Wonderland.
Same media apparatus that for years has been in a state of perpetual panic over Trump’s truthfulness-— Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) June 19, 2019
Has just spent the last 24 hours trying to convince America that AOCs “concentration camps” and “never again” comments are open to interpretation
Our lib media is unserious
Democrat Hypocrisy is just another facet of opposition
Comment:
6.19.17:
11:37 am:
If you look carefully at this poll, which a typical one lately on Rasmussen, you can see a problem. The problem is that 25%, or thereabouts, are open to persuasion on Trump either way.
Trump has to win 2/3 rds of these in order to get a majority. He doesn't get there very often.
Somehow, he has to get more ardent supporters, and fewer ardent opponents. Or, he has to win 2/3 of the rest. Tall order.
The election is 18 months off now, and this president has a track record. So far, he has avoided major pitfalls. But his press coverage is horrendous. By most standards, I'd say he's had a successful first term, and should have no trouble being reelected. That judgement would be based upon performance alone.
Yet his poll numbers do not reflect that. Just saying that there's something wrong here. He should be doing better, and complaining about the media is not the entire story. Reagan didn't have a friendly media either, but he won 49 states in his reelection bid. Trump might be lucky to win at all.
He needs to rethink his press relations. It may make a difference.
7:55 am:
The article discusses the fallout from the Stephanopolous interview recently.
It doesn't help to have to keep defending the POTUS. Even if the POTUS didn't do anything wrong.
Or did he?
The big mistake for Trump was to treat someone as trustworthy, yet who is definitely not. Stephanopolous is definitely partisan Democrat, and only wanted to gin up some controversy. Why grant him an audience? If that is unavoidable, then why hand him anything that he could use?
This president makes a bit of trouble for himself that is entirely unnecessary. Nothing he said was wrong, but he has to remember his own words about the news media--- they are the enemy.
6.19.17:
11:37 am:
If you look carefully at this poll, which a typical one lately on Rasmussen, you can see a problem. The problem is that 25%, or thereabouts, are open to persuasion on Trump either way.
Trump has to win 2/3 rds of these in order to get a majority. He doesn't get there very often.
Somehow, he has to get more ardent supporters, and fewer ardent opponents. Or, he has to win 2/3 of the rest. Tall order.
8:17 am:#Trump's daily job approval numbers for today are in! https://t.co/mazBCWoIMy @POTUS @realDonaldTrump #BreakingPoll pic.twitter.com/RipPgH7liB— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) June 19, 2019
The election is 18 months off now, and this president has a track record. So far, he has avoided major pitfalls. But his press coverage is horrendous. By most standards, I'd say he's had a successful first term, and should have no trouble being reelected. That judgement would be based upon performance alone.
Yet his poll numbers do not reflect that. Just saying that there's something wrong here. He should be doing better, and complaining about the media is not the entire story. Reagan didn't have a friendly media either, but he won 49 states in his reelection bid. Trump might be lucky to win at all.
He needs to rethink his press relations. It may make a difference.
7:55 am:
The article discusses the fallout from the Stephanopolous interview recently.
It doesn't help to have to keep defending the POTUS. Even if the POTUS didn't do anything wrong.
Or did he?
The big mistake for Trump was to treat someone as trustworthy, yet who is definitely not. Stephanopolous is definitely partisan Democrat, and only wanted to gin up some controversy. Why grant him an audience? If that is unavoidable, then why hand him anything that he could use?
This president makes a bit of trouble for himself that is entirely unnecessary. Nothing he said was wrong, but he has to remember his own words about the news media--- they are the enemy.
My weekend @NRO column: Democrats’ Hypocrisy on ‘Foreign Interference’ https://t.co/dSpAPyLksp— Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) June 16, 2019
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Elysium ---- Movie Review ( revisited )
Updated,
6.18.19:
It's amazing. I just rented this flick yet again. Why keep coming back to it? Unfortunately, the flick seems to demonstrate something active in the culture right now. It may explain the attempted coup.
The Marxist paradigm requires class conflict. Thus it requires an oppressor and the oppressed. This movie is based upon that paradigm. It is rather unfortunate that so many people fall for it. Not only that they fall for it, but those who should know better, don't seem to know any better themselves.
The movie had a coup in it, you see. These people may end up attempting a violent coup here, in this country, in the real world. One of these days, there will be an attempt. That is assuming that they don't succeed in a peaceful coup.
3.14.16:
I just watched the video and I have reconsidered my review here. Yes, there is possibility of people who would and do mistreat their fellow human beings. But that doesn't jibe with vast material progress that is depicted in the film. Instead of what's in this flick, you would get the decay of a civilization, not unlike Rome. As Rome didn't spin off another civilization that became even more advanced and "privileged", neither would any other civilization that mistreats a significant segment of its own population be capable of spinning off something better. It would destroy itself first, as Rome did.
This is what I've been trying to warn people about for the longest time here. If the powers that be won't allow basic material progress, and punishes anybody for coming up with an invention that would enhance human well being, it cannot continue for long.
The powers that be today are holding back the progress of humanity. They are doing it on the misguided notion that is depicted in the flick. The notion is that the resources of Earth can be depleted.
Those who think Earth's resources can be depleted do not understand basic concepts in science. Matter is not destroyed when you use it. It is simply put into another chemical state. That state is not permanent, as any chemical bond can be broken. You only have to supply sufficient energy to it.
Once the bonds are broken, they can be reassembled into useful items again. In other words, with sufficient energy, you can recycle everything an unlimited amount of times.
The trick is the energy. Where would you get it? Why from nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is a million times more powerful than chemical energy. It is easily seen then, that the altered chemical bonds mentioned can be restored to useful function with the enormous energy from the atom.
The problem is that the powers that be have decided that we cannot have nuclear energy. By taking this position, they are holding back the progress of humanity.
They'll say that they are doing it because radioactivity is dangerous. It's dangerous only if mishandled. Lots of things are that way. If everything that was potentially dangerous were to be banned, we would have to live at a much lower standard of living.
Ironically, the powers that be are the ones posing as our benefactors, but they are our oppressors. They are like the people of Elysium in this flick. They'll pose as good people, who bring us such ideas that are presented in this flick, but are evil instead because they are the same people who ban something like nuclear energy that would benefit mankind. I think the flick is such a pose, and it fools many.
The original review follows:
I went to see the movie last night at the IMAX on the west side of Houston.
The theater was about half full and there was a smattering of applause at the end. Some people seemed to like it.
As for me, it seemed to be entertaining, with plenty of action and things that go boom. If you accept the premises of the movie, you can enjoy it. If you don't, the movie looks rather flawed.
The main premise is that there can be such a place as this space station called "Elysium", at the same time that the Earth is really bad shape. For to construct such a place would require a technical competence far beyond anything that we have now. If such competence existed, why could it not be used to solve Earth's problems? It is that premise, that such competence would NOT be used for the greater benefit of humanity, that is the major premise of the movie. If you accept that, you can like this movie. If you don't, there's no doggone way that you can like this movie.
It has been said that the movie reflects our present more than it predicts the future. I would agree. It is basically a rather ignoble view of humanity that is offensive here. That there is something righteous and good about being poor, and something evil about being rich. That, by being rich, you can only take from others, or withhold from others, and not contribute something of worth for your prosperity. The movie doesn't even demonstrate that, it just presumes that people are that way. Again, I would agree that there are some people like that, but I would hope that it doesn't define humanity. For if it does, nothing like the technological marvel that is Elysium could ever be possible anyway. Why? Why invent something if you can steal it?
So, my verdict is this: If you want to be entertained, go see it. If you want to be informed, there are better ways to spend your time.
6.18.19:
It's amazing. I just rented this flick yet again. Why keep coming back to it? Unfortunately, the flick seems to demonstrate something active in the culture right now. It may explain the attempted coup.
The Marxist paradigm requires class conflict. Thus it requires an oppressor and the oppressed. This movie is based upon that paradigm. It is rather unfortunate that so many people fall for it. Not only that they fall for it, but those who should know better, don't seem to know any better themselves.
The movie had a coup in it, you see. These people may end up attempting a violent coup here, in this country, in the real world. One of these days, there will be an attempt. That is assuming that they don't succeed in a peaceful coup.
3.14.16:
I just watched the video and I have reconsidered my review here. Yes, there is possibility of people who would and do mistreat their fellow human beings. But that doesn't jibe with vast material progress that is depicted in the film. Instead of what's in this flick, you would get the decay of a civilization, not unlike Rome. As Rome didn't spin off another civilization that became even more advanced and "privileged", neither would any other civilization that mistreats a significant segment of its own population be capable of spinning off something better. It would destroy itself first, as Rome did.
This is what I've been trying to warn people about for the longest time here. If the powers that be won't allow basic material progress, and punishes anybody for coming up with an invention that would enhance human well being, it cannot continue for long.
The powers that be today are holding back the progress of humanity. They are doing it on the misguided notion that is depicted in the flick. The notion is that the resources of Earth can be depleted.
Those who think Earth's resources can be depleted do not understand basic concepts in science. Matter is not destroyed when you use it. It is simply put into another chemical state. That state is not permanent, as any chemical bond can be broken. You only have to supply sufficient energy to it.
Once the bonds are broken, they can be reassembled into useful items again. In other words, with sufficient energy, you can recycle everything an unlimited amount of times.
The trick is the energy. Where would you get it? Why from nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is a million times more powerful than chemical energy. It is easily seen then, that the altered chemical bonds mentioned can be restored to useful function with the enormous energy from the atom.
The problem is that the powers that be have decided that we cannot have nuclear energy. By taking this position, they are holding back the progress of humanity.
They'll say that they are doing it because radioactivity is dangerous. It's dangerous only if mishandled. Lots of things are that way. If everything that was potentially dangerous were to be banned, we would have to live at a much lower standard of living.
Ironically, the powers that be are the ones posing as our benefactors, but they are our oppressors. They are like the people of Elysium in this flick. They'll pose as good people, who bring us such ideas that are presented in this flick, but are evil instead because they are the same people who ban something like nuclear energy that would benefit mankind. I think the flick is such a pose, and it fools many.
The original review follows:
I went to see the movie last night at the IMAX on the west side of Houston.
The theater was about half full and there was a smattering of applause at the end. Some people seemed to like it.
As for me, it seemed to be entertaining, with plenty of action and things that go boom. If you accept the premises of the movie, you can enjoy it. If you don't, the movie looks rather flawed.
The main premise is that there can be such a place as this space station called "Elysium", at the same time that the Earth is really bad shape. For to construct such a place would require a technical competence far beyond anything that we have now. If such competence existed, why could it not be used to solve Earth's problems? It is that premise, that such competence would NOT be used for the greater benefit of humanity, that is the major premise of the movie. If you accept that, you can like this movie. If you don't, there's no doggone way that you can like this movie.
It has been said that the movie reflects our present more than it predicts the future. I would agree. It is basically a rather ignoble view of humanity that is offensive here. That there is something righteous and good about being poor, and something evil about being rich. That, by being rich, you can only take from others, or withhold from others, and not contribute something of worth for your prosperity. The movie doesn't even demonstrate that, it just presumes that people are that way. Again, I would agree that there are some people like that, but I would hope that it doesn't define humanity. For if it does, nothing like the technological marvel that is Elysium could ever be possible anyway. Why? Why invent something if you can steal it?
So, my verdict is this: If you want to be entertained, go see it. If you want to be informed, there are better ways to spend your time.
What might Flynn's new attorney do?
Comment:
Moderately long piece that goes over the possibilities. The most likely scenario could harm the anti-Trump faction while improving Flynn's prospects. Depends upon the judge, of course.
Moderately long piece that goes over the possibilities. The most likely scenario could harm the anti-Trump faction while improving Flynn's prospects. Depends upon the judge, of course.
What might Flynn’s new attorney @SidneyPowell1 do? Here’s your legal primer @FDRLST https://t.co/ENtrvEkuLP— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) June 18, 2019
Monday, June 17, 2019
Veselnitskaya Trump Jr. meeting a nothingburger
Comment:
3:00 pm:
Before studying it a bit, Fusion GPS does not come off looking good, and that does not count what they did with respect to Trump. Do liberals really want to associate with these guys?
12:00 noon:
Maybe a setup too, as Veselnitskaya said to be working with Fusion GPS.
Amazing with all these connections! State Department, FBI, Steele, et. al.
3:00 pm:
Before studying it a bit, Fusion GPS does not come off looking good, and that does not count what they did with respect to Trump. Do liberals really want to associate with these guys?
12:00 noon:
Maybe a setup too, as Veselnitskaya said to be working with Fusion GPS.
some of the thread:.@AndrewCMcCarthy is brilliant - knows it because he’s thorough and his testimony was fantastic https://t.co/Tg0ALa6CZg— Sara A. Carter (@SaraCarterDC) June 13, 2019
The State Department, with the approval of Obama, gave Veselnitskaya a special visa to come to the US. She met with Glenn Simpson the day before and the day after the Trump Tower meeting! Very fishy If you ask me— St Martin (@67sanmartin) June 13, 2019
Amazing with all these connections! State Department, FBI, Steele, et. al.
Kiliminik is State Dept
Comment:
Didn't she get the memo?
Didn't she get the memo?
OOPS: Maddow’s Favorite “Russian Connection” Turns Out To Be… https://t.co/cI4B4KRGj6— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) June 17, 2019
US Govt's Entire Russia-DNC Hacking Narrative Based On Redacted Draft Of Crowdstrike Report
Comment:
By George, I think you've got it.
( not George Will, nor George Soros, but they will )
By George, I think you've got it.
( not George Will, nor George Soros, but they will )
US Govt's Entire Russia-DNC Hacking Narrative Based On Redacted Draft Of Crowdstrike Report | Zero Hedge https://t.co/MYoYzzjoKS— 𝙻𝚎𝚎 𝚂𝚝𝚛𝚊𝚗𝚊𝚑𝚊𝚗 ⏳ (@stranahan) June 16, 2019
George Soros connection
Comment:
Soros had to be in this somewhere. "Follow the money."
Took a minute to find it but here's @themarketswork write up on Joneshttps://t.co/66m2bNuIac— Roscoe B Davis🎖⭐️⭐️⭐️ (@RoscoeBDavis1) June 16, 2019
More on Crowdstrike
Comment:
Follow the link provided to Jeff Carlson's piece. The "marketswork" blog has the article that "technofog" references. Carlson offers a theory as to the significance of the FISA 702 about queries.
One of the contractors discovered in the FISA audit may have been Crowdstrike.
Follow the link provided to Jeff Carlson's piece. The "marketswork" blog has the article that "technofog" references. Carlson offers a theory as to the significance of the FISA 702 about queries.
One of the contractors discovered in the FISA audit may have been Crowdstrike.
For more on Crowdstrike - and questions on whether Crowdstrike accessed raw FISA intel - see this great article by @themarketswork https://t.co/4tmhkJ7qK2— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) June 16, 2019
Sunday, June 16, 2019
Candace Owens v. Cenk Uygur
Comment:
The political trajectories of these two people go in opposite directions. Owens appeared to start as liberal and became conservative. It was the opposite direction for Cenk Uygur.
That said, they share a similar catalyzing event that sent them toward the opposite political direction.
Uygur said it was the Iraq War. Owens was doxxed as a result of starting a website called social autopsy.
Uygur insults Owens, and that's intriguing. Uygur probably sees Owens as a right-wing reactionary. Is there another way of looking at this?
As Ronald Reagan once said, the choice isn't between left or right. It is between freedom or tyranny.
After further review, this may be about race. It appear that Uygur embraces identity politics, whereas Owens rejects it.
The political trajectories of these two people go in opposite directions. Owens appeared to start as liberal and became conservative. It was the opposite direction for Cenk Uygur.
That said, they share a similar catalyzing event that sent them toward the opposite political direction.
Uygur said it was the Iraq War. Owens was doxxed as a result of starting a website called social autopsy.
Uygur insults Owens, and that's intriguing. Uygur probably sees Owens as a right-wing reactionary. Is there another way of looking at this?
As Ronald Reagan once said, the choice isn't between left or right. It is between freedom or tyranny.
After further review, this may be about race. It appear that Uygur embraces identity politics, whereas Owens rejects it.
Cenk: Don‘t Know if Candace Owens is ‘Stupid‘ or Just Money Hungry https://t.co/62ymfOTjWd via @BreitbartNews— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) June 16, 2019
Smell of victory
Comment:
Enemy propaganda often does not acknowledge defeat. However, if the defeat is of enough significance, it cannot be hidden. It was that way after the Battle of Saipan, 75 years ago.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Meanwhile, in a related matter in terms of enemies and their propaganda....
Could it be that enemedia can no longer hide the defeat looming just ahead?
If ethics are critical to Dems, how do they hide this?
Enemy propaganda often does not acknowledge defeat. However, if the defeat is of enough significance, it cannot be hidden. It was that way after the Battle of Saipan, 75 years ago.
The Battle of Saipan was 75 years ago today, June 15, 1944.— Jessie Jane Duff (@JessieJaneDuff) June 15, 2019
The U.S. death toll was 3,426 & over 10,364 wounded in action. 24,000 Japanese were killed.
Please watch and read the thread, a tribute by Marine LtCol Buck Miller's son.
Never forget these men who sacrificed so much. https://t.co/9nPN3qzBje
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Meanwhile, in a related matter in terms of enemies and their propaganda....
Could it be that enemedia can no longer hide the defeat looming just ahead?
If ethics are critical to Dems, how do they hide this?
A Fox poll shows that Dems view ethics as critical and prefer Biden. That’s because warped media has covered up how he brought his son to China, and while he was caving in to China, his son got $1.5 billion investment from China. Corrupt media can’t hide it forever.— Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) June 16, 2019
The political season approaches
It is still very early in the electoral process. However, I will make a few brief comments on the political scene.
The prospect for the reelection of POTUS Trump appears better than a fifty-fifty bet. His polls numbers are slowly rising. The economy is doing well. So far, there are no new wars.
The Mueller investigation is over. What remains of it is essentially a mopping-up project. Nothing new and damaging is likely to emerge.
The Barr investigations will help him now. Instead of playing defense, he can play offense. The news from these investigations will harm his opponents.
That's good news. However, the variables of peace and prosperity change the prospects daily. Job growth appears to be slowing down. The Iranians are attacking shipping in the Persian Gulf. Worrying trade difficulties with China roil the markets. The markets gyrate in response. The yield curve indicates weakness ahead. These factors may go against him yet.
It appears he is on track for re-election, but it is not guaranteed.
The prospect for the reelection of POTUS Trump appears better than a fifty-fifty bet. His polls numbers are slowly rising. The economy is doing well. So far, there are no new wars.
The Mueller investigation is over. What remains of it is essentially a mopping-up project. Nothing new and damaging is likely to emerge.
The Barr investigations will help him now. Instead of playing defense, he can play offense. The news from these investigations will harm his opponents.
That's good news. However, the variables of peace and prosperity change the prospects daily. Job growth appears to be slowing down. The Iranians are attacking shipping in the Persian Gulf. Worrying trade difficulties with China roil the markets. The markets gyrate in response. The yield curve indicates weakness ahead. These factors may go against him yet.
It appears he is on track for re-election, but it is not guaranteed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)