There aren't too many folks who haven't heard the environmentalist's pleas to save the whales. Human beings are so cruel, they claim. Only humans would hunt whales to extinction for their blubber. In the old days, whale blubber was turned into whale oil, which was used to light homes before there was such a thing as electricity.
If it wasn't for oil, whales would have been hunted to extinction for sure by now.
If it wasn't for coal, forests would have been denuded of trees by now.
If we go Barak to the future, the trees and the whales won't be safe. But those who won't think for themselves believe what the environmentalists say. They will stop the fossil fuel industry from saving the whales and the trees.
Yeah, I know it all sounds so extreme. But truth is extreme. So are lies. You don't find the truth by splitting the difference.
Save the whales. Keep the fossil fuel industry going.
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 17, 2012
Bad News: Meghan McCain Wants To See Some Changes In the GOP, Or She's Going to Stop Being a Republican
Ace
Meghan McCain said,
Those demographics were carried because the Dems cater to them at the expense of the rest of society. It may be a sad fact, but the only way the Republicans can be "relevant again" is to play the same game. But the twist is not to cater to these same people, but to the people that elect them in the first place. The conservatives won't play that game at all, but the "moderates" who do, such as the Republicans like McCain, want to emulate Democrats so much that they may as well become Democrats themselves.
Sheesh.
The party will disappear because the conservatives are getting sick and tired of the betrayals of the so-called moderate wing.
Meghan McCain said,
these issues have been important to the demographics that the Democrats carried on Election Day—single women, minorities, and young people.Comment:
Those demographics were carried because the Dems cater to them at the expense of the rest of society. It may be a sad fact, but the only way the Republicans can be "relevant again" is to play the same game. But the twist is not to cater to these same people, but to the people that elect them in the first place. The conservatives won't play that game at all, but the "moderates" who do, such as the Republicans like McCain, want to emulate Democrats so much that they may as well become Democrats themselves.
Sheesh.
The party will disappear because the conservatives are getting sick and tired of the betrayals of the so-called moderate wing.
Obama's "Forward" Theme is Orwellian Doublespeak
Does the so-called "progressive" movement really want progress? Personally, I think not. Hence, the entirely deceitful use of the term "forward". It is doublespeak. The opposite of its true meaning, which is to deceive the public.
Rush Limbaugh doesn't think the people of California are being deceived. They are getting what they want, he says. Do they want to die? If not, then they are being deceived. For that is where the far left will take us. It has happened before.
It was seen in the old Soviet Union, but now is seen in America- Old Soviet jokes become the new American reality.
If the far left gets its way in America, fracking will cease. Fracking is the only thing that has worked to produce jobs in the last four years. Obama took credit for it, but he would end it if he could. With his re-election, he just might.
Fracking is one of those things that a entrepreneurial nation like the United States has been known for. Something the far left hates with a passion.
The far left is hostile to the industrial revolution. They would prefer to return to the Stone Age, where they might be happiest--- if happiness is even possible for them. I would not object to their going, if they would just go there by themselves and leave the rest of us out of their plans. You may think this is over the top, but that is the way they think. These people now dominate in the administration. Look for them to start undermining any attempt at energy independence and production. They will attempt to impose solutions that don't work, such as conservation and renewables.
Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to renewables, if they were economically sensible. But they are not. One way that they might become sensible is if we started space settlement. But don't count on Obama to be interested in this. Obama seems to view the space program as a bread and circus operation just like he views everything else in government and the economy. Hence, he might get talked into increasing NASA's budget if it means increasing pork in areas that might help secure political advantage. But for no other reason, such as actually doing anything to help this country.
How would renewables work better if we settled space? Asteroidal platinum may be used to make the fuel cell work on an economic basis. But to get platinum in large enough quantities cannot be done without space infrastructure that house large numbers of people in space permanently. They would provide goods for trade-- among these goods would be platinum in amounts we can scarcely conceive. This platinum could come from mining asteroids. The platinum exists in space, but the will to go get it does not.
The far left despise the term "space colonization" because it reminds them of the Western world's colonization of the Third World. It was so unfair. It ruined the environment, they say. They would not approve of the same thing done in space even though nobody lives there to oppress. At least not yet. But not that many lived in the Americas either before the Europeans came. There are probably more Indians now than before Columbus. They had to reproduce in large numbers so that they could be oppressed enough for the left to exploit politically.
If the left gets their way, we may just go Barak to the Future. But would you like that? Probably not, but the doublespeak may deceive you into the idea of liking being killed. Like in Benghazi. Or like what existed in America before the Europeans brought civilization. You know, cannibalism and such. That's what makes it doublespeak--- it isn't going forward to the future, but backward into the barbaric past.
Rush Limbaugh doesn't think the people of California are being deceived. They are getting what they want, he says. Do they want to die? If not, then they are being deceived. For that is where the far left will take us. It has happened before.
It was seen in the old Soviet Union, but now is seen in America- Old Soviet jokes become the new American reality.
- America is capitalist and greedy – yet half of the population is subsidized.
- Half of the population is subsidized – yet they think they are victims.
- They think they are victims – yet their representatives run the government.
- Their representatives run the government – yet the poor keep getting poorer.
- The poor keep getting poorer – yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
- They have things that people in other countries only dream about – yet they want America to be more like those other countries.
If the far left gets its way in America, fracking will cease. Fracking is the only thing that has worked to produce jobs in the last four years. Obama took credit for it, but he would end it if he could. With his re-election, he just might.
Fracking is one of those things that a entrepreneurial nation like the United States has been known for. Something the far left hates with a passion.
The far left is hostile to the industrial revolution. They would prefer to return to the Stone Age, where they might be happiest--- if happiness is even possible for them. I would not object to their going, if they would just go there by themselves and leave the rest of us out of their plans. You may think this is over the top, but that is the way they think. These people now dominate in the administration. Look for them to start undermining any attempt at energy independence and production. They will attempt to impose solutions that don't work, such as conservation and renewables.
Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to renewables, if they were economically sensible. But they are not. One way that they might become sensible is if we started space settlement. But don't count on Obama to be interested in this. Obama seems to view the space program as a bread and circus operation just like he views everything else in government and the economy. Hence, he might get talked into increasing NASA's budget if it means increasing pork in areas that might help secure political advantage. But for no other reason, such as actually doing anything to help this country.
How would renewables work better if we settled space? Asteroidal platinum may be used to make the fuel cell work on an economic basis. But to get platinum in large enough quantities cannot be done without space infrastructure that house large numbers of people in space permanently. They would provide goods for trade-- among these goods would be platinum in amounts we can scarcely conceive. This platinum could come from mining asteroids. The platinum exists in space, but the will to go get it does not.
The far left despise the term "space colonization" because it reminds them of the Western world's colonization of the Third World. It was so unfair. It ruined the environment, they say. They would not approve of the same thing done in space even though nobody lives there to oppress. At least not yet. But not that many lived in the Americas either before the Europeans came. There are probably more Indians now than before Columbus. They had to reproduce in large numbers so that they could be oppressed enough for the left to exploit politically.
If the left gets their way, we may just go Barak to the Future. But would you like that? Probably not, but the doublespeak may deceive you into the idea of liking being killed. Like in Benghazi. Or like what existed in America before the Europeans brought civilization. You know, cannibalism and such. That's what makes it doublespeak--- it isn't going forward to the future, but backward into the barbaric past.
To solve the world's problems, just build your own world as you like
How much matter would it take? And where would it come from?
Let's assume that you have a torus ( think do-nut) which is 1000 meters in diameter, with a thickness of 100 meters. Assuming an outer skin or shell of 1 cm thick, this gives a mass of 170796 tons of iron.
But you would probably not want to use iron all around. Or iron at all. A better choice would be stainless steel, which would not rust. The moon has plenty of iron and silica for glass. The new man-made world would be made primarily of these two components.
If you use fused silica glass half and half, the weight would be reduced by half, then add back 27% of the missing half. giving a result 85398+23860 equals 109258 tons. If you wanted a thicker skin, double the thickness, and thus double the mass.
How to assemble all of this? If you lifted 1000 tons at a time, you would need 109 launches, probably from the moon. If you fused the two pieces together on the ground, then launched, it would still require a tremendous amount of lifting power as well as significant assembly still required in space. You would have to fit the 109 pieces together in space.
Not to worry. Parkins' device is claimed to be able to lift as much as 20,000 tons per launch from Earth. Besides, the moon's gravity is only 1/6ths of the Earth's, so that's doable-- at least in theory.
With a potentially mammoth launcher, you could divide it up into just a few sections. Each would be lifted off the lunar surface, docked with each other, and finally secured to each other. A new world thus constructed.
Time to work to make it a livable habitat.
It would be spun at 1 RPM in order to give artificial gravity of 1 g. You would start working on the inside so as to make it livable. It would need shielding from cosmic radiation. Plus a way to grow food and keep water. And so on and so forth. The energy source can be the sun, as it shines eternally in space.
You could build as many of these worlds as you wish. With cheap access to space, people could start populating it. The new worlds could be placed in Lagrange points. There are five of these around the Earth-Moon system, plus five more around the Earth-Sun. You could also place these around Mars and Venus. Plenty of places available.
The sky is literally the limit.
Update:
One of the basic ores on the moon would be ilmenite With that resource, you can make iron, oxygen, and rutile ( titanium). Another basic ore would be silicon dioxide, or just plain old beach sand. You can make glass out of that.
Let's assume that you have a torus ( think do-nut) which is 1000 meters in diameter, with a thickness of 100 meters. Assuming an outer skin or shell of 1 cm thick, this gives a mass of 170796 tons of iron.
But you would probably not want to use iron all around. Or iron at all. A better choice would be stainless steel, which would not rust. The moon has plenty of iron and silica for glass. The new man-made world would be made primarily of these two components.
If you use fused silica glass half and half, the weight would be reduced by half, then add back 27% of the missing half. giving a result 85398+23860 equals 109258 tons. If you wanted a thicker skin, double the thickness, and thus double the mass.
How to assemble all of this? If you lifted 1000 tons at a time, you would need 109 launches, probably from the moon. If you fused the two pieces together on the ground, then launched, it would still require a tremendous amount of lifting power as well as significant assembly still required in space. You would have to fit the 109 pieces together in space.
Not to worry. Parkins' device is claimed to be able to lift as much as 20,000 tons per launch from Earth. Besides, the moon's gravity is only 1/6ths of the Earth's, so that's doable-- at least in theory.
With a potentially mammoth launcher, you could divide it up into just a few sections. Each would be lifted off the lunar surface, docked with each other, and finally secured to each other. A new world thus constructed.
Time to work to make it a livable habitat.
It would be spun at 1 RPM in order to give artificial gravity of 1 g. You would start working on the inside so as to make it livable. It would need shielding from cosmic radiation. Plus a way to grow food and keep water. And so on and so forth. The energy source can be the sun, as it shines eternally in space.
You could build as many of these worlds as you wish. With cheap access to space, people could start populating it. The new worlds could be placed in Lagrange points. There are five of these around the Earth-Moon system, plus five more around the Earth-Sun. You could also place these around Mars and Venus. Plenty of places available.
The sky is literally the limit.
Update:
One of the basic ores on the moon would be ilmenite With that resource, you can make iron, oxygen, and rutile ( titanium). Another basic ore would be silicon dioxide, or just plain old beach sand. You can make glass out of that.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Union: 'Bain-style' killing of Twinkie - Kevin Cirilli - POLITICO.com
Union: 'Bain-style' killing of Twinkie - Kevin Cirilli - POLITICO.com
Somehow, in the liberal's alternative universe, it's all Romney's fault.
Are these people nuts or what? But they are running the country. It isn't an alternative universe. God help us.
Al-Qaeda’s alive, Twinkies are dead,” Limbaugh said.
Somehow, in the liberal's alternative universe, it's all Romney's fault.
Are these people nuts or what? But they are running the country. It isn't an alternative universe. God help us.
Down the memory hole
Just tried to find that Hillary melt-down that happened sometime during the 2004 Presidential election. She went bonkers claiming that the Bush Admininstration was trying to silence her and other critics.
I don't recall that ever happening to her. But I do recall that she did do that and Limbaugh had her on tape and was making fun of her rant. That exists somewhere on tape.
But you can't find it on the internet. I'm looking for it, but can't find it. It seems like everything on the net is temporary. Stuff can just be flushed down the memory hole. Other stuff isn't.
Just wondering if people are getting too "in the moment" in their thinking. Don't forget the past. But it is being forgotten.
Why is that?
I don't recall that ever happening to her. But I do recall that she did do that and Limbaugh had her on tape and was making fun of her rant. That exists somewhere on tape.
But you can't find it on the internet. I'm looking for it, but can't find it. It seems like everything on the net is temporary. Stuff can just be flushed down the memory hole. Other stuff isn't.
Just wondering if people are getting too "in the moment" in their thinking. Don't forget the past. But it is being forgotten.
Why is that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)