If you noticed, this blog doesn't follow polls. To the contrary, I've said to ignore the polls.
Inevitably, though, something may be appropriately said about the prospects going forward into election day.
It seems that most polls that I've seen assume an electorate that will look like 2008. That's why the polls tended to favor Obama, or to make the race seem pretty close. If the polls are showing a close race with those assumptions, then the Democrats are going to be very disappointed on election day. In my opinion, I think the electorate is going to look more like 2004 than 2008. That election was fairly close, but Bush won decisively over John Kerry. This election could be a re-run of that one.
Actually, I'd rather see a Reagan-Carter type outcome, which was over before half of the polls in the nation had even closed. Carter conceded too early and that cost the Democrats dearly. Just more evidence as to why Carter wasn't up to the job.
Looking at it that way, it may be helpful to keep spirits up even if you know you are going to lose. Somebody could be spinning the polls in order to keep it as close as possible. A rout could be disastrous for the loser. Any size loss by Romney would be a disaster for the Republicans. But a big loss for the Democrats will undo a lot of their most recent efforts.
Let's hope for a Reagan-Carter redux. Let's think BIG.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Plasma Jet Electric Thrusters for Spacecraft
story at Next Big Future
Supercool! I didn't know about this, or I would have kicked in a few bucks. Oh, well. It is funded anyway, so it will happen without me. Good luck, dudes.
Supercool! I didn't know about this, or I would have kicked in a few bucks. Oh, well. It is funded anyway, so it will happen without me. Good luck, dudes.
What the hay?
This truck, which was hauling hay, gave me an idea for a post. It made me wonder if raising hay for biochar and methanol would be worth it.
The process would be as follows: after collecting the hay, pyrolyze it into syngas and biochar. Using the syngas, synthesize methanol. Ship the methanol to the final end purchasing site where it is reformed into hydrogen for fuel cells.
The biochar would be used for improving soils and could also serve as a carbon sink. Since the entire process doesn't use fossil fuels, it is actually carbon negative. Some of the carbon goes into the soil, the rest is recycled back into the atmosphere where it can be harvested again some day.
You would obtain the necessary platinum from mining asteroids. If the price of platinum can be brought down low enough, the final end result could be a cleaner source of energy at a reduced cost. How could you lose?
 |
| How much fuel could you get out of this much hay? |
Update:
Only three posts in this series, but I wrote extensively on the subject of using seaweed in the Dead Zone of Gulf of Mexico to clean it up and make biofuel out of it.
Part 2
Part 3
Many of the posts for this could be found in the category labels that are at the end of this post or others in the first two parts may give leads to finding more reading.
IRS Tax Form for Obamacare Individual Mandate
Americans for Tax Reform via Behind the Black
A glimpse into the not too distant future if Obama and the Democrats survive this election:
Wolf Final
A glimpse into the not too distant future if Obama and the Democrats survive this election:
Wolf Final
Modern day decline of the West
There has been much written about the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. Not everyone agrees on what and when this actually was, but it certainly happened. The "fall" as it were, occurred in 476 AD with the deposition of the last Roman Emperor Augustulus.
Pat Buchanan touched upon the subject of decline with respect to the end of the British Empire. His theory was that the loss of their empire was directly related to their involvement in the Second World War. If only they had stayed out, the British Empire would exist today.
Buchanan believes that America made a mistake in going into Iraq. It would parallel what happened to the English. The parallels can be found as such, but is that the real reason we are in trouble today? Can such a small inconsequential war be so damaging as all that?
It could if it were political damage only. Military and economically, it was inconsequential.
The Iraq war didn't do America in. It was the oil. In my opinion, America's troubles began when it stopped producing its own energy. Once it started importing oil from the Middle East, it also started importing trouble with terrorism. America is funding its civilizational enemies while at the same time, weakening itself. All of this long preceded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It all seemed to happen in a short time. By 1970, molten-salt nuclear reactor technology was a practical option. Also, by 1970, the US had begun to withdraw from Vietnam. By 1970, Richard Nixon was president. Nixon would be forced from office by 1974, as the retrograde, anti-progress, anti-nuke, left-wing was on the rise.
By 1979, radical Islam had taken over in Iran, abetted by the weakness of a feckless left-wing US president--- Jimmy Carter. Malaise had overtaken America. An energy crisis combined with a hostage crisis had undone Carter and brought Reagan to the Presidency. But no solution to the energy crisis was at hand even though a solution was under both leaders very noses---molten-salt nuclear energy developed by 1970.
If molten salt reactors had been produced, Three Mile Island wouldn't have mattered. As a matter of fact, it vindicated Weinberg's concerns about solid-fueled water-cooled reactor technology. But, instead of reaching that conclusion, nuclear energy itself was called into question. That unfortunate development was just another link in the chain of civilizational decay that continues to this very day.
In 2001, America's homeland was attacked from the West's ancient enemies in the Middle East. They were aided and abetted by oil money from imports of Middle Eastern Oil.
Now, in 2012, President Obama is walking in Jimmy Carter's footsteps. As Carter did, he is trying to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar energy. As Carter did, he is showing weakness towards the Middle East. As Jimmy Carter did, he is trying to appease an enemy that cannot be appeased. It would seem that a new Reagan should arise. Is Romney that man?
Reagan's emphasis was on the Soviet Union. If Romney's is on Russia, he will be making a very big mistake. Russia is not the problem. America's failure to embrace nuclear energy in the form of molten-salt nuclear reactor technology could lead it to continue with policies that cannot maintain a political consensus long enough to weather the challenge from the Middle East. Fusion technology may not arrive soon enough. Wind and Solar cannot bridge the gap. Oil production cannot compete economically with cheap oil from the Persian Gulf. Only nuclear energy has the potential to do this. But this option is continually shunned.
Romney is promising to heal the economy. Let's hope that if elected, he can come through. America can then regain its strength and truly move forward. I believe that he had better not ignore molten-salt technology, nor any other technology that may solve the energy problem. Molten-salt techology is proven. The others are potential. The path is clear, but will he take it? Obama won't.
Pat Buchanan touched upon the subject of decline with respect to the end of the British Empire. His theory was that the loss of their empire was directly related to their involvement in the Second World War. If only they had stayed out, the British Empire would exist today.
Buchanan believes that America made a mistake in going into Iraq. It would parallel what happened to the English. The parallels can be found as such, but is that the real reason we are in trouble today? Can such a small inconsequential war be so damaging as all that?
It could if it were political damage only. Military and economically, it was inconsequential.
The Iraq war didn't do America in. It was the oil. In my opinion, America's troubles began when it stopped producing its own energy. Once it started importing oil from the Middle East, it also started importing trouble with terrorism. America is funding its civilizational enemies while at the same time, weakening itself. All of this long preceded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It all seemed to happen in a short time. By 1970, molten-salt nuclear reactor technology was a practical option. Also, by 1970, the US had begun to withdraw from Vietnam. By 1970, Richard Nixon was president. Nixon would be forced from office by 1974, as the retrograde, anti-progress, anti-nuke, left-wing was on the rise.
By 1979, radical Islam had taken over in Iran, abetted by the weakness of a feckless left-wing US president--- Jimmy Carter. Malaise had overtaken America. An energy crisis combined with a hostage crisis had undone Carter and brought Reagan to the Presidency. But no solution to the energy crisis was at hand even though a solution was under both leaders very noses---molten-salt nuclear energy developed by 1970.
If molten salt reactors had been produced, Three Mile Island wouldn't have mattered. As a matter of fact, it vindicated Weinberg's concerns about solid-fueled water-cooled reactor technology. But, instead of reaching that conclusion, nuclear energy itself was called into question. That unfortunate development was just another link in the chain of civilizational decay that continues to this very day.
In 2001, America's homeland was attacked from the West's ancient enemies in the Middle East. They were aided and abetted by oil money from imports of Middle Eastern Oil.
Now, in 2012, President Obama is walking in Jimmy Carter's footsteps. As Carter did, he is trying to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar energy. As Carter did, he is showing weakness towards the Middle East. As Jimmy Carter did, he is trying to appease an enemy that cannot be appeased. It would seem that a new Reagan should arise. Is Romney that man?
Reagan's emphasis was on the Soviet Union. If Romney's is on Russia, he will be making a very big mistake. Russia is not the problem. America's failure to embrace nuclear energy in the form of molten-salt nuclear reactor technology could lead it to continue with policies that cannot maintain a political consensus long enough to weather the challenge from the Middle East. Fusion technology may not arrive soon enough. Wind and Solar cannot bridge the gap. Oil production cannot compete economically with cheap oil from the Persian Gulf. Only nuclear energy has the potential to do this. But this option is continually shunned.
Romney is promising to heal the economy. Let's hope that if elected, he can come through. America can then regain its strength and truly move forward. I believe that he had better not ignore molten-salt technology, nor any other technology that may solve the energy problem. Molten-salt techology is proven. The others are potential. The path is clear, but will he take it? Obama won't.
Bill Maher
Supposedly, this guy's a comedian. He makes a "joke" here and the audience laughs. But really, is this funny?
He is relying on black stereotypes for his basis for humor here. "Everybody" knows that blacks are violent. So "everybody" laughs at the "joke". I'm not black, but I'd think I'd take offense at being stereotyped that way. If you are black, what say you?
Europe is a dead man walking
The blindness of this interviewer is shocking. Or is shocking to someone who is actually awake. Europe is a dead man walking. This guy sees it as it is. His interviewer does not. Very sad to watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)